No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
Assume related to Brass Momkeys having their testicles frozen off?
This cold snap is going to brutalise people's finances. Not good for Tory prospects.
Interesting (to me at least) observation. I was out charity collecting last night. It definitely seems more house we’re colder than in previous years. Not unseated, but not running at 25 deg C, which is often something we encounter. Lots of families in a lot of clothing too. But not all. At least one young mum came to the door in skimpy silk shorts and a vest in an obviously warm house. Poor Santa didn’t know where to look…
Well, don't go charity collecting then. Sorry, but I really, really hate people like you. I whack a reasonable bit of wedge out by monthly standing order to sort out blindness in Africa and hunger in various places, but I am buggered if I am explaining that to a door knocking nuisance when I am trying to watch the telly, so Feck off before I rip your lungs out is my polite and measured response.
Unless it's cats or lifeboats. Then it's straight to the baseball bat.
What an odd response! I’m not complaining about anything. Rather I’m helping the local Lions charity collection. They put 90% of all donations back into local needs and the remaining 10% to overseas. And because we are bringing Santa to see the kids with our sleigh, 99% of expletives love it. Makes the kids evenings. Did you imagine I was a chugger, or something?
No.
OTOH, if you are knocking up a whole street and it's not in K&C, you are necessarily knocking on the doors of a lot of poor people, many of whom will be guilt tripped into donating what they cannot afford. I mean, how are they meant to refuse you? "I already give" sounds like a lie, "I can't afford to" is humiliating, "Why should I" sounds a tad selfish, and "F*** off and die" is something most find unaccountably difficult to say. So, genuinely, what legitimate exits do you think you leave them?
I tend to agree. Going round knocking on doors asking for money is out of order
And I don't care what charity it is (the entire charity sector is badly tarnished)
I don't think it is regarded as socially acceptable any more to go around knocking on peoples doors, unless it is halloween or you are trying to find a lost cat or something. It feels quite intrusive and threatening to people.
I think you misunderstand the round table/lions Christmas floats as they are very colourfully lit with music playing and Santa on board, often jumping off and greeting adoring children while the parents look overjoyed, and I expect this year it will be even more appreciated by most everyone who can see such joy in children
Fair enough... i'd probably donate some money to it, but I think they need to have a card machine - I don't have any cash these days. I'd agree with turbotubbs that it is probably about the most useful and socially productive thing you can donate money to.
A few years I volunteered to help the board of a community development trust. They were doing what looked like very interesting work in providing housing for disadvantaged people and addressing social inequalities and they wanted me to join the board. However I started reading the papers of the board meetings where I saw they were approving massive payments to a consultancy business owned by the founder of the trust, funded by grants from various charitable organisations. The board, which included local Councillors, were just going along with this without scrutinising or challenging what was going on. It was not exactly a scam but it could be easily perceived as such.
So that would be no change while the party is up 3 and Labour down 2.
There isn't usually a strong relationship between intra-poll changes in leader ratings and VI in mid-term. In fact, we always used to be told to look in mid-term at leader ratings as more predictive of the ensuing GE than VI.
Whether this will hold or not this time is a matter of opinion, but -3 in the circumstances looks surprisingly strong for Sunak. Still an awful lot of undecideds, though.
A lot of remainers and Labour supporters have had enough of Tories at the moment, and can’t face the idea the electorate who gave the Tories a landslide may not have have had enough of the Tories yet, making the next election a close run nail biter. Worse - the Trussterfuck in the polls led this herd to believe a change of government was nailed on already, 2 years out from voting, they believed there had been a “sea change” and the Trussterfuck polls would take 12 years to unwind back to 6 or 7 % Labour leads.
But back in the real world it’s looking like the Trussterfuck polls will take 12 weeks to unwind back to 6 or 7 % Labour leads.
What it’s done has made Labour rampers opinions on polling and the next election irrelevant now, until such time they accept over the last two weeks the Tories are going up in the polls, Labour down, on many it’s dramatic very shifts on the recent polls from each firm, and all because the the Sunak and his government are becoming POPULAR during COL crisis and the next election becoming a tight if Tories can be prized from government or not.
The mistake PBs Labour herd have is two fold, they looked at polls but ignored focus groups, in focus groups the voters like the Tories, see experience and leadership in the current government and not from Labour. Even though Labour 20+ 30+ leads were a short lived thing this year, they ignored the truth it has so quickly been falling from 30, to 20, and heading towards 10 and single digits again. Some of us tried to point out, yes your feet are currently dry, but your boat is sinking, but they just piled on these innocent posters with their certain landslide majority nonsense.
Worse - when Mike explained how Blair had working majorities with 40+ seats from Scotland, how do you get working majorities with zero seats from Scotland, they called him wrong and not listening - which was painful and embarrassing to read.
It’s time for the Labour herd on here to apologise now to all those who merely tried to point out electoral facts and direction of travel in the polls to them.
The Trussterfuck polling that supposed to take 12 years to unwind will be unwound in about 12 weeks, because the Tories have been cute, ruthless to dump a leader after just a month, for a leader the MPs support so not going to the membership, and then dismantle all her policy agenda and budget in record time. Like the French football team, the Tories have “the killer instinct”, this Labour Party hasn’t.
There's been a lull, sure, 40 days since the last ministerial resignation and rising. But we're all distracted by Christmas and the footie. PB lefties have their biases but so do you
What do current polls Baxter to?
We can both agree the fact is your feet are currently dry, but do you accept the fact the boat is sinking, or are you still not properly paying attention like I am?
Drunkards walk innit? Why assume the vessel sinks indefinitely rather than stabilises or starts to rise again? My picture is the trend line is downwards from Paterson onwards, with a subsidiary downtick from truss which was always going to correct itself back to the, still downwards, trend.
I’ve just made this for you. Sept 21 up to today. Clear and relentless Trussterfuck unwind.
I really don't understand what you're getting at. Absolutely everybody thought the Trussterfuck would unwind. Absolutely nobody thought that 30 point Labour leads were sustainable. Absolutely everybody thought that Sunak would provide enough stability to win some Tories back. But the Labour lead remains high.
“I really don't understand what you're getting at”
Trend!
Look at how the most recent polling dots have the lower labour dots and higher Tory dots - the media and voters are increasingly seeing Sunak Hunt and Tory government as strong and stable so why should this narrowing trend end anytime soon?
Back in the summer when yougov put Tories just 1 point behind and I was suggesting complete opposite to this and proved right, the Tory polling position as inflated and to worsen against the political narrative, did you criticise me then, was a herd of Labour Rampers piling on me then? No.
The fact is Two things are against you. The political narrative of a strong stable and likeable government managing the crisis well is what is fuelling a closing of the poll gaps, and this moves closer to crossover with the incredible electoral mountain Labour need to climb. Win 120 seats and still not have a majority. As Mike explained, unlike Blair era No help coming from Scotland, it’s all on having to win Albion massively. What’s the first target swing 0.something%? But what’s the hundredth target seat 9% or more? And there is no uniform swing. Up the road 8% needed captured on 10% swing, down the road not far away, 5% needed only 3% Tory hold. What’s the swing needed to take 100-150 seats? These are not just seats on loan to Tory’s, these are Tory seats that don’t go to Labour but they need to in order for Labour to have a majority - this is why this closing of polls right now is important, this trend is important, it’s leaving Labour needing to take traditional Tory seats against backdrop of 2 years of popular and effective and experienced Tory government under Hunt and Sunak.
That’s what I’m getting at.
LOL
Every Tory I know isn't going to be voting Tory next time because either:
- Truss really pissed them off - Sunak taking over really pissed them off
I'm talking MEMBERS, let alone average voters....
My current MP is a friend of mine so I expect I'll vote for him; otherwise I think I'd spoil my ballot by scrawling 'LETS STOP EXPANDING THE STATE' all over it.
A protest vote against land reclamation.
Hello, we’re from the Erosion Party, can we depend on your vote?
This cold snap is going to brutalise people's finances. Not good for Tory prospects.
Interesting (to me at least) observation. I was out charity collecting last night. It definitely seems more house we’re colder than in previous years. Not unseated, but not running at 25 deg C, which is often something we encounter. Lots of families in a lot of clothing too. But not all. At least one young mum came to the door in skimpy silk shorts and a vest in an obviously warm house. Poor Santa didn’t know where to look…
Well, don't go charity collecting then. Sorry, but I really, really hate people like you. I whack a reasonable bit of wedge out by monthly standing order to sort out blindness in Africa and hunger in various places, but I am buggered if I am explaining that to a door knocking nuisance when I am trying to watch the telly, so Feck off before I rip your lungs out is my polite and measured response.
Unless it's cats or lifeboats. Then it's straight to the baseball bat.
What an odd response! I’m not complaining about anything. Rather I’m helping the local Lions charity collection. They put 90% of all donations back into local needs and the remaining 10% to overseas. And because we are bringing Santa to see the kids with our sleigh, 99% of expletives love it. Makes the kids evenings. Did you imagine I was a chugger, or something?
No.
OTOH, if you are knocking up a whole street and it's not in K&C, you are necessarily knocking on the doors of a lot of poor people, many of whom will be guilt tripped into donating what they cannot afford. I mean, how are they meant to refuse you? "I already give" sounds like a lie, "I can't afford to" is humiliating, "Why should I" sounds a tad selfish, and "F*** off and die" is something most find unaccountably difficult to say. So, genuinely, what legitimate exits do you think you leave them?
I tend to agree. Going round knocking on doors asking for money is out of order
And I don't care what charity it is (the entire charity sector is badly tarnished)
I don't think it is regarded as socially acceptable any more to go around knocking on peoples doors, unless it is halloween or you are trying to find a lost cat or something. It feels quite intrusive and threatening to people.
I think you misunderstand the round table/lions Christmas floats as they are very colourfully lit with music playing and Santa on board, often jumping off and greeting adoring children while the parents look overjoyed, and I expect this year it will be even more appreciated by most everyone who can see such joy in children
Fair enough... i'd probably donate some money to it, but I think they need to have a card machine - I don't have any cash these days. I'd agree with turbotubbs that it is probably about the most useful and socially productive thing you can donate money to.
A few years I volunteered to help the board of a community development trust. They were doing what looked like very interesting work in providing housing for disadvantaged people and addressing social inequalities and they wanted me to join the board. However I started reading the papers of the board meetings where I saw they were approving massive payments to a consultancy business owned by the founder of the trust, funded by grants from various charitable organisations. The board, which included local Councillors, were just going along with this without scrutinising or challenging what was going on. It was not exactly a scam but it could be easily perceived as such.
On card machines, we have collected similar amounts of money this year so far as last, possibly a bit down on pre pandemic. Could be CoL, but we suspect some is genuine lack of coins to donate. Card machine may work, but last night we had ten collectors and no way of knowing which one would need the machine. Something for the organisers to work on.
So that would be no change while the party is up 3 and Labour down 2.
There isn't usually a strong relationship between intra-poll changes in leader ratings and VI in mid-term. In fact, we always used to be told to look in mid-term at leader ratings as more predictive of the ensuing GE than VI.
Whether this will hold or not this time is a matter of opinion, but -3 in the circumstances looks surprisingly strong for Sunak. Still an awful lot of undecideds, though.
A lot of remainers and Labour supporters have had enough of Tories at the moment, and can’t face the idea the electorate who gave the Tories a landslide may not have have had enough of the Tories yet, making the next election a close run nail biter. Worse - the Trussterfuck in the polls led this herd to believe a change of government was nailed on already, 2 years out from voting, they believed there had been a “sea change” and the Trussterfuck polls would take 12 years to unwind back to 6 or 7 % Labour leads.
But back in the real world it’s looking like the Trussterfuck polls will take 12 weeks to unwind back to 6 or 7 % Labour leads.
What it’s done has made Labour rampers opinions on polling and the next election irrelevant now, until such time they accept over the last two weeks the Tories are going up in the polls, Labour down, on many it’s dramatic very shifts on the recent polls from each firm, and all because the the Sunak and his government are becoming POPULAR during COL crisis and the next election becoming a tight if Tories can be prized from government or not.
The mistake PBs Labour herd have is two fold, they looked at polls but ignored focus groups, in focus groups the voters like the Tories, see experience and leadership in the current government and not from Labour. Even though Labour 20+ 30+ leads were a short lived thing this year, they ignored the truth it has so quickly been falling from 30, to 20, and heading towards 10 and single digits again. Some of us tried to point out, yes your feet are currently dry, but your boat is sinking, but they just piled on these innocent posters with their certain landslide majority nonsense.
Worse - when Mike explained how Blair had working majorities with 40+ seats from Scotland, how do you get working majorities with zero seats from Scotland, they called him wrong and not listening - which was painful and embarrassing to read.
It’s time for the Labour herd on here to apologise now to all those who merely tried to point out electoral facts and direction of travel in the polls to them.
The Trussterfuck polling that supposed to take 12 years to unwind will be unwound in about 12 weeks, because the Tories have been cute, ruthless to dump a leader after just a month, for a leader the MPs support so not going to the membership, and then dismantle all her policy agenda and budget in record time. Like the French football team, the Tories have “the killer instinct”, this Labour Party hasn’t.
There's been a lull, sure, 40 days since the last ministerial resignation and rising. But we're all distracted by Christmas and the footie. PB lefties have their biases but so do you
What do current polls Baxter to?
We can both agree the fact is your feet are currently dry, but do you accept the fact the boat is sinking, or are you still not properly paying attention like I am?
Drunkards walk innit? Why assume the vessel sinks indefinitely rather than stabilises or starts to rise again? My picture is the trend line is downwards from Paterson onwards, with a subsidiary downtick from truss which was always going to correct itself back to the, still downwards, trend.
I’ve just made this for you. Sept 21 up to today. Clear and relentless Trussterfuck unwind.
I really don't understand what you're getting at. Absolutely everybody thought the Trussterfuck would unwind. Absolutely nobody thought that 30 point Labour leads were sustainable. Absolutely everybody thought that Sunak would provide enough stability to win some Tories back. But the Labour lead remains high.
“I really don't understand what you're getting at”
Trend!
Look at how the most recent polling dots have the lower labour dots and higher Tory dots - the media and voters are increasingly seeing Sunak Hunt and Tory government as strong and stable so why should this narrowing trend end anytime soon?
Back in the summer when yougov put Tories just 1 point behind and I was suggesting complete opposite to this and proved right, the Tory polling position as inflated and to worsen against the political narrative, did you criticise me then, was a herd of Labour Rampers piling on me then? No.
The fact is Two things are against you. The political narrative of a strong stable and likeable government managing the crisis well is what is fuelling a closing of the poll gaps, and this moves closer to crossover with the incredible electoral mountain Labour need to climb. Win 120 seats and still not have a majority. As Mike explained, unlike Blair era No help coming from Scotland, it’s all on having to win Albion massively. What’s the first target swing 0.something%? But what’s the hundredth target seat 9% or more? And there is no uniform swing. Up the road 8% needed captured on 10% swing, down the road not far away, 5% needed only 3% Tory hold. What’s the swing needed to take 100-150 seats? These are not just seats on loan to Tory’s, these are Tory seats that don’t go to Labour but they need to in order for Labour to have a majority - this is why this closing of polls right now is important, this trend is important, it’s leaving Labour needing to take traditional Tory seats against backdrop of 2 years of popular and effective and experienced Tory government under Hunt and Sunak.
That’s what I’m getting at.
LOL
Every Tory I know isn't going to be voting Tory next time because either:
- Truss really pissed them off - Sunak taking over really pissed them off
I'm talking MEMBERS, let alone average voters....
My current MP is a friend of mine so I expect I'll vote for him; otherwise I think I'd spoil my ballot by scrawling 'LETS STOP EXPANDING THE STATE' all over it.
A protest vote against land reclamation.
Hello, we’re from the Erosion Party, can we depend on your vote?
The Erosion Party? I couldn't vote for them, they are all at sea, and dry as dust.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
I'm never quite sure what "should be" means. A year out from: GE2019, neck-and-neck (Large Gov win) GE2017, 10% Gov lead (Gov win) GE2015, <5% Opp lead (Gov win) GE2010 15% Opp lead (Opp win) GE2005 <5% Gov lead (Gov win) GE2001 10% Gov lead (Gov win) GE1997 25% Opp lead (Large Opp win) GE1992 neck-and-neck (Narrow Gov win) GE1987 5% Opp lead (Large Gov win) GE1983 15% Gov lead (Large Gov win) GE1979 neck-and-neck (Opp win) 1974 is a bit complicate But small, variable polling leads.
It strikes me that 15% polling leads a year out lead to whoever has those leads winning the subsequent election. 20%+ and it is indicative of a possible landslide. Neck-and-neck a year out, and it is down to "events" (and the campaigns). <5% and it is all to play for.
But there are always exceptions to these guidelines (2019 being the case in point).
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
It just means very cold. And is spelled without the k apparently. No relation to the same word meaning skint AFAICT.
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
It just means very cold. And is spelled without the k apparently. No relation to the same word meaning skint AFAICT.
Presumably derivative from that popular cold weather vegetables, brassicas?
My favourite response one night, as I knocked on the four bed detached new build house, with the brand new BMW outside, was “No thanks mate, I’ve given enough”. No problem from me, he was polite about it! Sadly in the post covid age, coins are getting scarcer, and this may impact on how we try to collect in future.
What? That's exactly me, except 2 bed hovel and fucked up Toyota Hilux. I give, by monthly standing order, to carefully researched charities, I am not interested in being pitched to for a tenner by a randomer on my doorstep, and it now turns out that the price of this is being anonymously ridiculed on the internet.
Which just reinforces my policy of inviting chuggers to f off and die.
At which point I would say Merry Christmas and leave you to your evening. I’d suggest you are not representing most people. You make a valid point - it’s impossible to know if BMW guy is committing 50% of his income monthly to charities, and my anecdote may be grossly unfair on him. But I bet he wasn’t.
What is the rationale for that bet? Bit common was he?
Reality: you are, I'm guessing, oldish, white, middle class and well heeled. The young, lower class and poor are easily soft-intimidated to giving to you. This bloke had the impertinence not to be.
I am having a tough time here. I am arguing for money to be donated by the rich to poor, hungry, blind children in Africa, not by the poor to yachties and Christmas floats and fucking kittens, and being made to feel bad about it by all and sundry, and by the only Marxist in the village.
The estate the ‘incident’ occurred on is not home to the lower classes. He was middle aged, white, had spent lots on stuff (as he is totally at liberty to, it’s his money), and I just found it amusing. As I keep saying, Lions money is not going to yachties, it’s going to little old ladies in need and families who can’t afford to buy a new washing machine. They also give weeks holidays to poor families. I’d never criticise anyone for not donating - that’s up to them, no matter what reasons they have. I’m not trying to make you feel bad.
But I spend lots of money on me, and also lots, relatively speaking, on charity. What makes it "amusing" and not believable that this guy refused you money? I just don't get this at all. How does judging people by the car they own make you anything but a snob?
And if you want to imply that I "don't donate" because I don't donate to doorsteppers like you I am very, very happy to frame a bet with you about that, loser to pay 10% net annual income to charity of winners choice.
You seem to be conflating an incident I had with someone else, with yourself. I’m happy to accept that you are very generous. I also don’t think I ever suggested that YOU don’t donate. The guy didn’t ‘refuse ‘ me money, he said ‘no thanks mate, I’ve given enough’. And that was the end of it. I didn’t scratch his car, or egg his house, I walked off into the night.
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
It just means very cold. And is spelled without the k apparently. No relation to the same word meaning skint AFAICT.
Always assumed it was connected to the proverbial brass monkeys.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
Here's the true state of the Sunak bounce summarised:
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The point about the person you seem to identify strongly with? I think I have explained. Wealthy, larger detached house, nice car, chose not to donate. My suspicion is that he could have afforded some loose change from his pocket (it was a few years ago) but didn’t want to. I characterised him as a Scrooge. Possibly unfairly, although my guess is not, but that’s my prejudice. I’m sorry it’s upset you.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
My favourite response one night, as I knocked on the four bed detached new build house, with the brand new BMW outside, was “No thanks mate, I’ve given enough”. No problem from me, he was polite about it! Sadly in the post covid age, coins are getting scarcer, and this may impact on how we try to collect in future.
What? That's exactly me, except 2 bed hovel and fucked up Toyota Hilux. I give, by monthly standing order, to carefully researched charities, I am not interested in being pitched to for a tenner by a randomer on my doorstep, and it now turns out that the price of this is being anonymously ridiculed on the internet.
Which just reinforces my policy of inviting chuggers to f off and die.
At which point I would say Merry Christmas and leave you to your evening. I’d suggest you are not representing most people. You make a valid point - it’s impossible to know if BMW guy is committing 50% of his income monthly to charities, and my anecdote may be grossly unfair on him. But I bet he wasn’t.
What is the rationale for that bet? Bit common was he?
Reality: you are, I'm guessing, oldish, white, middle class and well heeled. The young, lower class and poor are easily soft-intimidated to giving to you. This bloke had the impertinence not to be.
I am having a tough time here. I am arguing for money to be donated by the rich to poor, hungry, blind children in Africa, not by the poor to yachties and Christmas floats and fucking kittens, and being made to feel bad about it by all and sundry, and by the only Marxist in the village.
The estate the ‘incident’ occurred on is not home to the lower classes. He was middle aged, white, had spent lots on stuff (as he is totally at liberty to, it’s his money), and I just found it amusing. As I keep saying, Lions money is not going to yachties, it’s going to little old ladies in need and families who can’t afford to buy a new washing machine. They also give weeks holidays to poor families. I’d never criticise anyone for not donating - that’s up to them, no matter what reasons they have. I’m not trying to make you feel bad.
But I spend lots of money on me, and also lots, relatively speaking, on charity. What makes it "amusing" and not believable that this guy refused you money? I just don't get this at all. How does judging people by the car they own make you anything but a snob?
And if you want to imply that I "don't donate" because I don't donate to doorsteppers like you I am very, very happy to frame a bet with you about that, loser to pay 10% net annual income to charity of winners choice.
You seem to be conflating an incident I had with someone else, with yourself. I’m happy to accept that you are very generous. I also don’t think I ever suggested that YOU don’t donate. The guy didn’t ‘refuse ‘ me money, he said ‘no thanks mate, I’ve given enough’. And that was the end of it. I didn’t scratch his car, or egg his house, I walked off into the night.
So whence the amusement?
Because in my head he.d given enough to the BMW dealership, and to whoever he bought the 60 inch TV from etc. His choice, my judgement, possibly unfair. Judge not lest you be judged and all that. Why has this struck such a nerve with you?
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
No, he has a clear course. Make Brexit work, no reversal or renegotiation, no pay rise for public sector workers. Lots of flags.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
You can almost see the election leaflet now. “We are not the Tories”. Starmer and labour will get more scrutiny as we approach the election. People will find that they don’t have easy answers, but they will be different and that will be enough to win.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
I don’t think that’s come out in quite the way you mean it. Going to sea in hazardous conditions to effect rescues is inherently dangerous, albeit they will be trained to minimise the risks that they take.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
Sorry but that's utter nonsense and denigrated the crews who regularly take to the sea in weather and seas that are a risk to their own safety
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
Sorry but that's utter nonsense and denigrated the crews who regularly take to the sea in weather and seas that are a risk to their own safety
A quick search suggests over 600 people have died in RNLI service over time. I’m sure that there are fewer more recently, but the RNLI will set out in terrible conditions to try to save lives.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
Sorry but that's utter nonsense and denigrated the crews who regularly take to the sea in weather and seas that are a risk to their own safety
A quick search suggests over 600 people have died in RNLI service over time. I’m sure that there are fewer more recently, but the RNLI will set out in terrible conditions to try to save lives.
It is true that the inshore will not be launched at a certain sea state, but in those conditions the all weather (AWB) would be launched
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The point about the person you seem to identify strongly with? I think I have explained. Wealthy, larger detached house, nice car, chose not to donate. My suspicion is that he could have afforded some loose change from his pocket (it was a few years ago) but didn’t want to. I characterised him as a Scrooge. Possibly unfairly, although my guess is not, but that’s my prejudice. I’m sorry it’s upset you.
No. The only two comparison points you have given me are, 4 bed new build and new BMW. Me, 2 bed 100 year old and fucked up truck. Why would I identify?
My point is, your sense of entitlement based on social cues: you are a posh oldie doing what you think of as good and you are enraged at this spivvy young prole not doing as you tell him. There's 2 questions. Does he have money? Well, how can you tell? Might be all on credit. And 2 if he does, should he prioritise giving it to you Vs his chosen charities or his ailing mum or his supplier of highly addictive drugs?
The expression entitled is hugely over used but you exactly embody it; your anecdote makes this much sense: hyyyuttttrgrrrft I rtyy, UNLESS we have an unspoken common assumption that you had some sort of entitlement to some of his money.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The point about the person you seem to identify strongly with? I think I have explained. Wealthy, larger detached house, nice car, chose not to donate. My suspicion is that he could have afforded some loose change from his pocket (it was a few years ago) but didn’t want to. I characterised him as a Scrooge. Possibly unfairly, although my guess is not, but that’s my prejudice. I’m sorry it’s upset you.
No. The only two comparison points you have given me are, 4 bed new build and new BMW. Me, 2 bed 100 year old and fucked up truck. Why would I identify?
My point is, your sense of entitlement based on social cues: you are a posh oldie doing what you think of as good and you are enraged at this spivvy young prole not doing as you tell him. There's 2 questions. Does he have money? Well, how can you tell? Might be all on credit. And 2 if he does, should he prioritise giving it to you Vs his chosen charities or his ailing mum or his supplier of highly addictive drugs?
The expression entitled is hugely over used but you exactly embody it; your anecdote makes this much sense: hyyyuttttrgrrrft I rtyy, UNLESS we have an unspoken common assumption that you had some sort of entitlement to some of his money.
Why?
You really are riled up over nothing. I’m also very much not posh. He was older than me. I don’t think I have a sense of entitlement - this is entirely in your head. As I said, I replied ‘Merry Christmas” and walked away.
We clearly won’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine. I’m probably in the wrong to have judged him a bit. Fine (and I’ve already said that). What I don’t understand is your reaction this. Why are you so bothered?
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
Assume related to Brass Momkeys having their testicles frozen off?
I've never heard of "brassick" and wonder if this is a misconstrual
I HAVE heard of "brassic" or "boracic", it is slightly effortful Cockney Rhyming Slang from the 1970-80s meaning Skint, from Boracic Lint - Skint
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
You can almost see the election leaflet now. “We are not the Tories”. Starmer and labour will get more scrutiny as we approach the election. People will find that they don’t have easy answers, but they will be different and that will be enough to win.
It isn't, or at least isn't likely, if you go in after 5 years maybe 5% ahead. But if you go in at around 10-15%? You'll get a lot of benefit of the doubt.
My favourite response one night, as I knocked on the four bed detached new build house, with the brand new BMW outside, was “No thanks mate, I’ve given enough”. No problem from me, he was polite about it! Sadly in the post covid age, coins are getting scarcer, and this may impact on how we try to collect in future.
What? That's exactly me, except 2 bed hovel and fucked up Toyota Hilux. I give, by monthly standing order, to carefully researched charities, I am not interested in being pitched to for a tenner by a randomer on my doorstep, and it now turns out that the price of this is being anonymously ridiculed on the internet.
Which just reinforces my policy of inviting chuggers to f off and die.
At which point I would say Merry Christmas and leave you to your evening. I’d suggest you are not representing most people. You make a valid point - it’s impossible to know if BMW guy is committing 50% of his income monthly to charities, and my anecdote may be grossly unfair on him. But I bet he wasn’t.
What is the rationale for that bet? Bit common was he?
Reality: you are, I'm guessing, oldish, white, middle class and well heeled. The young, lower class and poor are easily soft-intimidated to giving to you. This bloke had the impertinence not to be.
I am having a tough time here. I am arguing for money to be donated by the rich to poor, hungry, blind children in Africa, not by the poor to yachties and Christmas floats and fucking kittens, and being made to feel bad about it by all and sundry, and by the only Marxist in the village.
The estate the ‘incident’ occurred on is not home to the lower classes. He was middle aged, white, had spent lots on stuff (as he is totally at liberty to, it’s his money), and I just found it amusing. As I keep saying, Lions money is not going to yachties, it’s going to little old ladies in need and families who can’t afford to buy a new washing machine. They also give weeks holidays to poor families. I’d never criticise anyone for not donating - that’s up to them, no matter what reasons they have. I’m not trying to make you feel bad.
But I spend lots of money on me, and also lots, relatively speaking, on charity. What makes it "amusing" and not believable that this guy refused you money? I just don't get this at all. How does judging people by the car they own make you anything but a snob?
And if you want to imply that I "don't donate" because I don't donate to doorsteppers like you I am very, very happy to frame a bet with you about that, loser to pay 10% net annual income to charity of winners choice.
You seem to be conflating an incident I had with someone else, with yourself. I’m happy to accept that you are very generous. I also don’t think I ever suggested that YOU don’t donate. The guy didn’t ‘refuse ‘ me money, he said ‘no thanks mate, I’ve given enough’. And that was the end of it. I didn’t scratch his car, or egg his house, I walked off into the night.
So whence the amusement?
Because in my head he.d given enough to the BMW dealership, and to whoever he bought the 60 inch TV from etc. His choice, my judgement, possibly unfair. Judge not lest you be judged and all that. Why has this struck such a nerve with you?
Because I am a filthy commie. My point isn't about him, it's about his counterparts. He is not evidence that the rich are mean and greedy, he is evidence that the poor are disproportionately easily shamed and embarrassed by the middle classes into donating money they can't afford to causes they don't give a toss about.
No snow round here. But it has been brassick for days. Unfortunately, it warmed up just enough to have a Biblical downpour of rain for about an hour Sunday afternoon. Which of course froze. The pavements are about as treacherous as I ever can remember. -5°C right now.
What is "brassick"? I was hoping it might be a form that cold water could take, cf. graupel or hoar frost. Seems not, though.
Assume related to Brass Momkeys having their testicles frozen off?
I've never heard of "brassick" and wonder if this is a misconstrual
I HAVE heard of "brassic" or "boracic", it is slightly effortful Cockney Rhyming Slang from the 1970-80s meaning Skint, from Boracic Lint - Skint
I'd never heard of it meaning skint till I moved to London. It was a fairly common slang word for cold in Lancashire in the 70's. Maybe it is just two regional slang words for different things.
My favourite response one night, as I knocked on the four bed detached new build house, with the brand new BMW outside, was “No thanks mate, I’ve given enough”. No problem from me, he was polite about it! Sadly in the post covid age, coins are getting scarcer, and this may impact on how we try to collect in future.
What? That's exactly me, except 2 bed hovel and fucked up Toyota Hilux. I give, by monthly standing order, to carefully researched charities, I am not interested in being pitched to for a tenner by a randomer on my doorstep, and it now turns out that the price of this is being anonymously ridiculed on the internet.
Which just reinforces my policy of inviting chuggers to f off and die.
At which point I would say Merry Christmas and leave you to your evening. I’d suggest you are not representing most people. You make a valid point - it’s impossible to know if BMW guy is committing 50% of his income monthly to charities, and my anecdote may be grossly unfair on him. But I bet he wasn’t.
What is the rationale for that bet? Bit common was he?
Reality: you are, I'm guessing, oldish, white, middle class and well heeled. The young, lower class and poor are easily soft-intimidated to giving to you. This bloke had the impertinence not to be.
I am having a tough time here. I am arguing for money to be donated by the rich to poor, hungry, blind children in Africa, not by the poor to yachties and Christmas floats and fucking kittens, and being made to feel bad about it by all and sundry, and by the only Marxist in the village.
The estate the ‘incident’ occurred on is not home to the lower classes. He was middle aged, white, had spent lots on stuff (as he is totally at liberty to, it’s his money), and I just found it amusing. As I keep saying, Lions money is not going to yachties, it’s going to little old ladies in need and families who can’t afford to buy a new washing machine. They also give weeks holidays to poor families. I’d never criticise anyone for not donating - that’s up to them, no matter what reasons they have. I’m not trying to make you feel bad.
But I spend lots of money on me, and also lots, relatively speaking, on charity. What makes it "amusing" and not believable that this guy refused you money? I just don't get this at all. How does judging people by the car they own make you anything but a snob?
And if you want to imply that I "don't donate" because I don't donate to doorsteppers like you I am very, very happy to frame a bet with you about that, loser to pay 10% net annual income to charity of winners choice.
You seem to be conflating an incident I had with someone else, with yourself. I’m happy to accept that you are very generous. I also don’t think I ever suggested that YOU don’t donate. The guy didn’t ‘refuse ‘ me money, he said ‘no thanks mate, I’ve given enough’. And that was the end of it. I didn’t scratch his car, or egg his house, I walked off into the night.
So whence the amusement?
Because in my head he.d given enough to the BMW dealership, and to whoever he bought the 60 inch TV from etc. His choice, my judgement, possibly unfair. Judge not lest you be judged and all that. Why has this struck such a nerve with you?
Because I am a filthy commie. My point isn't about him, it's about his counterparts. He is not evidence that the rich are mean and greedy, he is evidence that the poor are disproportionately easily shamed and embarrassed by the middle classes into donating money they can't afford to causes they don't give a toss about.
I assume you missed the post about where we mostly collect from? He was one data point on a night of data points where the overwhelming majority of people are pleased to see the Lions collecting and happy to spare some odd coppers and loose silver.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
You can almost see the election leaflet now. “We are not the Tories”. Starmer and labour will get more scrutiny as we approach the election. People will find that they don’t have easy answers, but they will be different and that will be enough to win.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The point about the person you seem to identify strongly with? I think I have explained. Wealthy, larger detached house, nice car, chose not to donate. My suspicion is that he could have afforded some loose change from his pocket (it was a few years ago) but didn’t want to. I characterised him as a Scrooge. Possibly unfairly, although my guess is not, but that’s my prejudice. I’m sorry it’s upset you.
No. The only two comparison points you have given me are, 4 bed new build and new BMW. Me, 2 bed 100 year old and fucked up truck. Why would I identify?
My point is, your sense of entitlement based on social cues: you are a posh oldie doing what you think of as good and you are enraged at this spivvy young prole not doing as you tell him. There's 2 questions. Does he have money? Well, how can you tell? Might be all on credit. And 2 if he does, should he prioritise giving it to you Vs his chosen charities or his ailing mum or his supplier of highly addictive drugs?
The expression entitled is hugely over used but you exactly embody it; your anecdote makes this much sense: hyyyuttttrgrrrft I rtyy, UNLESS we have an unspoken common assumption that you had some sort of entitlement to some of his money.
Why?
You really are riled up over nothing. I’m also very much not posh. He was older than me. I don’t think I have a sense of entitlement - this is entirely in your head. As I said, I replied ‘Merry Christmas” and walked away.
We clearly won’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine. I’m probably in the wrong to have judged him a bit. Fine (and I’ve already said that). What I don’t understand is your reaction this. Why are you so bothered?
Because I don't like the self righteous, soft bullying of the poor.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
The average lead of polls taken at least partially in December is 20%. So. Yes it is off the peak, but I don't think anyone was claiming that would stay. And, no. It is nowhere near what Miliband had.
Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots thought a 33% Labour lead would be replicated at the general election.
And I reckon they nobody thinks 20% leads will survive the duration either. The issue is the swingback is starting from a lot further back this time. We are 3 years into this Parliament. Average Labour leads at the equivalent time in May 2013 were 9-10%.
Circumstances are different too. Swingback is quite variable from GE to GE, sometimes negligible. Starmer imploding is always possible, but unlikely. I may not like his course, but he is strongly sticking to it. Sunak seems all over the place.
Sir Keir's course is not to have a course. That's quite easy to stick to.
You can almost see the election leaflet now. “We are not the Tories”. Starmer and labour will get more scrutiny as we approach the election. People will find that they don’t have easy answers, but they will be different and that will be enough to win.
Yes.
But not to do anything with it.
The great Blair mistake? Landslide election giving the opportunity to reshape the nation, and was afraid to be radical? I hope not. Country needs a new direction and a chance to renew itself after the Brexit mess. The Tories cannot do that, no matter how much Sunak pretends he has formed a new government with no link to the past.
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The point about the person you seem to identify strongly with? I think I have explained. Wealthy, larger detached house, nice car, chose not to donate. My suspicion is that he could have afforded some loose change from his pocket (it was a few years ago) but didn’t want to. I characterised him as a Scrooge. Possibly unfairly, although my guess is not, but that’s my prejudice. I’m sorry it’s upset you.
No. The only two comparison points you have given me are, 4 bed new build and new BMW. Me, 2 bed 100 year old and fucked up truck. Why would I identify?
My point is, your sense of entitlement based on social cues: you are a posh oldie doing what you think of as good and you are enraged at this spivvy young prole not doing as you tell him. There's 2 questions. Does he have money? Well, how can you tell? Might be all on credit. And 2 if he does, should he prioritise giving it to you Vs his chosen charities or his ailing mum or his supplier of highly addictive drugs?
The expression entitled is hugely over used but you exactly embody it; your anecdote makes this much sense: hyyyuttttrgrrrft I rtyy, UNLESS we have an unspoken common assumption that you had some sort of entitlement to some of his money.
Why?
You really are riled up over nothing. I’m also very much not posh. He was older than me. I don’t think I have a sense of entitlement - this is entirely in your head. As I said, I replied ‘Merry Christmas” and walked away.
We clearly won’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine. I’m probably in the wrong to have judged him a bit. Fine (and I’ve already said that). What I don’t understand is your reaction this. Why are you so bothered?
Because I don't like the self righteous, soft bullying of the poor.
Now going to watch my 60in, paid for TV. The end.
I’m sorry you think that’s what the Lions do, I really am.
That was a damned civil and generous post on the subject. Are you well?
Can you not see it, Mex Pex. To be generous back, you and others probably can’t see what I’m seeing because a double digit Labour lead of about 14 or 15 still looks strong and healthy to you? when benchmarked properly it isn’t.
It should be around here at this point anyway, anyway, even milliband got around here at this stage before a losing year. Also you should not see it as a gap to the Tories but benchmark only versus the unique electoral hurdle for Labour - ignore those who Baxter, there wil be no uniform swing. Benchmarked properly like that this lead isn’t all that decisive is it? And, ITS SHRINKING. Sunak’s government is becoming popular - Labour havn’t got at this one, Labour and it’s supporters in media don’t have the killer instinct when it comes to Sunak.
The largest ever lead Miliband achieved was 16%, Starmer has bettered that and then some.
Unlike Miliband, Starmer leads Sunak on quite a few key supplementaries.
Here's the true state of the Sunak bounce summarised:
Summary summarised: "Meh"
Cameron had a 15% lead a year out but Brown slashed that by more than half to just 7% on polling day in May 2010 to get a hung parliament. Cameron became PM with most seats, he did not win a majority as he did in 2015
Yes, Yes still under 50% including don't knows even ignoring the fact that this Tory government will refuse indyref2 indefinitely with the support of the SC
Yes, Yes still under 50% included don't knows even ignoring the fact that this Tory government will refuse indyref2 indefinitely with the support of the SC
Some weird anti-charity misanthropy on here today.
Provided the Trustees and Charity Commission are happy with its operations then it is a free market. Charity is by definition voluntary, no one being obliged to give. We each have our favourite causes and others not our cup of tea.
I've donated to Amnesty every month since I became student, stopped donating this year when they wrote some utter bollocks about Ukraine.
The RNLI are my main charity this year.
Careful now, they’ll just waste it on lifeboats for rich yachties…
You are getting silly now. The stats are easily found. But yes, why waste money on African children being cured of blindness and malaria when there's English accountants need a tow back to port?
All about priorities.
The RNLI rescue lots of people, from all kinds of backgrounds.
Even really common BMW owners?
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
The RNLI volunteers risk their lives to save anyone in distress at sea and any suggestion otherwise is a disgraceful slur on the organisation, and in my case personally against my son, who is proud to serve as sea going crew of Llandudno RNLI
They don't really take many risks though. The intent of the volunteers is without doubt, but they're straightened out from that.
fuck you blind....tell that to mousehole that lifeboat crews dont take many risks. Stop being a c**t
Comments
A few years I volunteered to help the board of a community development trust. They were doing what looked like very interesting work in providing housing for disadvantaged people and addressing social inequalities and they wanted me to join the board. However I started reading the papers of the board meetings where I saw they were approving massive payments to a consultancy business owned by the founder of the trust, funded by grants from various charitable organisations. The board, which included local Councillors, were just going along with this without scrutinising or challenging what was going on. It was not exactly a scam but it could be easily perceived as such.
GE2019, neck-and-neck (Large Gov win)
GE2017, 10% Gov lead (Gov win)
GE2015, <5% Opp lead (Gov win)
GE2010 15% Opp lead (Opp win)
GE2005 <5% Gov lead (Gov win)
GE2001 10% Gov lead (Gov win)
GE1997 25% Opp lead (Large Opp win)
GE1992 neck-and-neck (Narrow Gov win)
GE1987 5% Opp lead (Large Gov win)
GE1983 15% Gov lead (Large Gov win)
GE1979 neck-and-neck (Opp win)
1974 is a bit complicate
It strikes me that 15% polling leads a year out lead to whoever has those leads winning the subsequent election. 20%+ and it is indicative of a possible landslide. Neck-and-neck a year out, and it is down to "events" (and the campaigns). <5% and it is all to play for.
But there are always exceptions to these guidelines (2019 being the case in point).
We seem to be in Opp win territory.
Like I say, the stats are out there. Also, I spend about 8 weeks a year sailing in mainly UK waters so I know a bit about RNLI capabilities.
Sightsavers don't deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds at all, they are all dead poor. Very uninclusive of them.
You still haven't explained the point about the bloke who wouldn't give you money. It seems to be one of those sophisticated nod and wink jokes which go without saying between posh blokes.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602417585269932032 https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1602417585269932032/photo/1
Summary summarised: "Meh"
Not my cup of tea, but he has been consistent.
Starmer and labour will get more scrutiny as we approach the election. People will find that they don’t have easy answers, but they will be different and that will be enough to win.
My point is, your sense of entitlement based on social cues: you are a posh oldie doing what you think of as good and you are enraged at this spivvy young prole not doing as you tell him. There's 2 questions. Does he have money? Well, how can you tell? Might be all on credit. And 2 if he does, should he prioritise giving it to you Vs his chosen charities or his ailing mum or his supplier of highly addictive drugs?
The expression entitled is hugely over used but you exactly embody it; your anecdote makes this much sense: hyyyuttttrgrrrft I rtyy, UNLESS we have an unspoken common assumption that you had some sort of entitlement to some of his money.
Why?
We clearly won’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine. I’m probably in the wrong to have judged him a bit. Fine (and I’ve already said that). What I don’t understand is your reaction this. Why are you so bothered?
I HAVE heard of "brassic" or "boracic", it is slightly effortful Cockney Rhyming Slang from the 1970-80s meaning Skint, from Boracic Lint - Skint
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brassic
It was a fairly common slang word for cold in Lancashire in the 70's.
Maybe it is just two regional slang words for different things.
https://manchestersouvenirs.co.uk/the-mancunian-alphabet/#:~:text=Brassic,Poor, skint, without money.
He was one data point on a night of data points where the overwhelming majority of people are pleased to see the Lions collecting and happy to spare some odd coppers and loose silver.
But not to do anything with it.
Now going to watch my 60in, paid for TV. The end.