I've been pondering the current political markets. (Labour overall majority, for example, to lay at 1.61, so 62% chance of that.) As Mike has pointed out in a recent header the magnitude of the swing needed for reality to match market expectation is enormous. (So far as I know unprecidented)
But will it happen?
The Tories aren't in any position to do much about it. Sunak will probably get mildly more popular, and any change at best gets Boris back, and he's not going to turn it round. (All of this seatwise, not anything I want)
Other than the Tories there's noone else in the game. The LDs seem to have taken the monumentally baffling route of just passing by. The SNP can only gift Labour seats, and PC are nowhere. (NI not likely to change much either)
So we're left with Labour's threat to Labour. Now we're talking. This is the big fight, potentially.
The left (who are definitely not going away) have two routes to power - subvert or advertise. They tried the advertise idea with Corbyn, but it didn't work - although it wasn't far off. Subversion therefore has to be plan one, but Starmer is a lumpy obstacle. So it therefore must be back to a shout-it-out campaign.
My guess - Corbyn will run for Mayor.
(If I was a left-wing strategist I'd think that this was pretty much the worst possible course, but whilst I may not be the sharpest tool in the box I beat anyone on the left apart from NPxMP into a paper bag)
The problem with Corbyn for Mayor he would be a Brexiter running for Mayor in Remain Central.
Pretty hard to claim that highlighting that is underhand.
He and the left are going to do something though. I imagine you'd agree. If so, what?
Depends on Corbyn - not very predictable
- Run as an independent? 50/50 I think - More chance of Mayor. But this has more chance of crashing and burning.
He'll surely run as an independent if the intel says he could poll well. Can't see why he wouldn't.
And let the Tories win.
That would really advance the cause of Socialism.
Blame SKS
Of course. He's the one who might be standing against the official Labour candidate.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
Agreed, and I'm happy to admit that I'm towards the woke end of the continuum (I have a copy of Gender-Swapped Fairy Tales, for crying out loud),
Intellectually, I can discriminate between changes I think are sensible (not assuming all of a particular breed of fictional character are men) and those I think are not (getting rid of the word fat). But I have to overcome an instinctive response like yours to do so. And I think I agree with Casino that I'll still read the old versions to my kids (though probably with a blood pressure considerably lower than his).
Most people don't care as much about this stuff, and won't bother with the cognitive effort needed to get past an instinctive response (nor, necessarily, should they). This is the sort of unimportant topic that can have a viral effect.
I suspect Starmer will avoid getting sucked in, though.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
There's a more technical problem with the whole affair, which so far as I know the Dahl estate are all for presumably out of embarrassment of him being, well, a bit nasty, and that's that no matter how much you employ sensitivity readers to remove anything that could possibly be deemed offensive, some things will remain (never mind also that in some cases they have changed bits that don't seem to be be offensive at all, or are from characters who are meant to be offensive) which someone will be able to moan about. They might not even have moaned before, but if the sensitivity of others is so important why not them too?
As Baddiel noted: The problem with the Dahl bowdlerisation is it has no logical consistency. Here, double chin has been cut, presumably to avoid fat shaming. But what about wonky nose or crooked teeth shaming? Once you start on this path you can end up with blank pages.
Yes, some things in literature are deemed unacceptable, or under some kind of restriction even, and publishers and so some form of editorialising will have been going on, so we're talking about a culturally acceptable line to draw to some extent. But the reason this example has drawn ire is not only that a lot of people remember reading the Dahl books with fondness, but because the extent of the changes and some of the examples are so apt for mockery, done not because of genuine offensiveness but some parody of pearl clutching fear of giving offence, and inserting moralising to boot not just removing content.
I've been pondering the current political markets. (Labour overall majority, for example, to lay at 1.61, so 62% chance of that.) As Mike has pointed out in a recent header the magnitude of the swing needed for reality to match market expectation is enormous. (So far as I know unprecidented)
But will it happen?
The Tories aren't in any position to do much about it. Sunak will probably get mildly more popular, and any change at best gets Boris back, and he's not going to turn it round. (All of this seatwise, not anything I want)
Other than the Tories there's noone else in the game. The LDs seem to have taken the monumentally baffling route of just passing by. The SNP can only gift Labour seats, and PC are nowhere. (NI not likely to change much either)
So we're left with Labour's threat to Labour. Now we're talking. This is the big fight, potentially.
The left (who are definitely not going away) have two routes to power - subvert or advertise. They tried the advertise idea with Corbyn, but it didn't work - although it wasn't far off. Subversion therefore has to be plan one, but Starmer is a lumpy obstacle. So it therefore must be back to a shout-it-out campaign.
My guess - Corbyn will run for Mayor.
(If I was a left-wing strategist I'd think that this was pretty much the worst possible course, but whilst I may not be the sharpest tool in the box I beat anyone on the left apart from NPxMP into a paper bag)
The problem with Corbyn for Mayor he would be a Brexiter running for Mayor in Remain Central.
Pretty hard to claim that highlighting that is underhand.
He and the left are going to do something though. I imagine you'd agree. If so, what?
Depends on Corbyn - not very predictable
- Run as an independent? 50/50 I think - More chance of Mayor. But this has more chance of crashing and burning.
He'll surely run as an independent if the intel says he could poll well. Can't see why he wouldn't.
And let the Tories win.
That would really advance the cause of Socialism.
Blame SKS
Oh and an SKS win would really advance the cause of Socialism
Most of us who will vote Labour or other left of centre parties in the next election don’t care about advancing the cause of socialism. We just want a well run economy, good quality public services, and a fair society.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
They wouldn't I'd have thought. I suppose the thinking behind it is that what the masses want is affirmation.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
I've been pondering the current political markets. (Labour overall majority, for example, to lay at 1.61, so 62% chance of that.) As Mike has pointed out in a recent header the magnitude of the swing needed for reality to match market expectation is enormous. (So far as I know unprecidented)
But will it happen?
The Tories aren't in any position to do much about it. Sunak will probably get mildly more popular, and any change at best gets Boris back, and he's not going to turn it round. (All of this seatwise, not anything I want)
Other than the Tories there's noone else in the game. The LDs seem to have taken the monumentally baffling route of just passing by. The SNP can only gift Labour seats, and PC are nowhere. (NI not likely to change much either)
So we're left with Labour's threat to Labour. Now we're talking. This is the big fight, potentially.
The left (who are definitely not going away) have two routes to power - subvert or advertise. They tried the advertise idea with Corbyn, but it didn't work - although it wasn't far off. Subversion therefore has to be plan one, but Starmer is a lumpy obstacle. So it therefore must be back to a shout-it-out campaign.
My guess - Corbyn will run for Mayor.
(If I was a left-wing strategist I'd think that this was pretty much the worst possible course, but whilst I may not be the sharpest tool in the box I beat anyone on the left apart from NPxMP into a paper bag)
The problem with Corbyn for Mayor he would be a Brexiter running for Mayor in Remain Central.
Pretty hard to claim that highlighting that is underhand.
He and the left are going to do something though. I imagine you'd agree. If so, what?
Depends on Corbyn - not very predictable
- Run as an independent? 50/50 I think - More chance of Mayor. But this has more chance of crashing and burning.
He'll surely run as an independent if the intel says he could poll well. Can't see why he wouldn't.
And let the Tories win.
That would really advance the cause of Socialism.
Blame SKS
Oh and an SKS win would really advance the cause of Socialism
Most of us who will vote Labour or other left of centre parties in the next election don’t care about advancing the cause of socialism. We just want a well run economy, good quality public services, and a fair society.
Get none of those via SKS
Austerity, further NHS privatisation and no redistribution of wealth
Thats what SKS is offering and telling you we cant afford anything better
What a wonderful day. Woke up with hardly any pain (which is unusual). Went and watched my football team win their first game of 2023 under a new manager. Dined on fillet steak and a bottle of Carmenere. Then watched all three piano concertos of Sergei Bortkievicz. They really are extraordinary - the first is so romantic and includes September Song before Weill wrote it. The 2nd had a piano played entirely with the left hand. The 3rd is the most dramatic and has one of the best finale in classical music. And so to bed.
What's needed on a Saturday. I'll have to check Bortkievicz out.
Decided to try scallops today for the first time in my life. Not bad but not really sure what the fuss is about either. However 5 hours later I find myself vomiting for the first time in yonks. Had one cider but I doubt that would have done it. Bad scallops or possible allergy?
Bad scallops. Classic food poisoning. Allergy is quicker.
Bloody unlucky then. I've eaten scallops 100s of times and never suffered food poisoning; Frank eats them for the first time and succumbs.
(OTOH, when I met Mrs P. she confidently told me she was allergic to prawns, a few years later she was eating them with no ill-effects. It seems her first experience of prawns involved a dose of e. coli or similar.)
2019 "Climate change is the issue of our time & as the XR protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we dont take action.. now we need action"
2022 "Get up, go home. I'm opposed to what your doing.. & thats why we've wanted longer sentences"
Those statements do not necessarily contradict one another. If action has indeed taken place since 2019 as he said was needed, then the same or escalated actions from XR and fellow travellers would not be as praiseworthy.
He’s pathetic. A gift to Lynton Crosby and the Tory machine, who will be gleefully compiling these clips for deployment during the election campaign. Expect to see this and too many other examples on high rotation.
The required action is government getting the country to net zero faster, not an XR protest.
How very dare you suggest those two are not exactly the same thing!?
(In defence of XR I do think they, among others, have successfully helped change political and public opinion on these matters more in the direction of what they want. But some of their actions are still just trivial)
The appointment of this guy’s replacement is arguably more significant.
Poor man. You can't even give an honest answer any more.
If he’s still at the “I’m not a scientist” stage on the issue, then he’s not fit for the post, ‘honest’ or otherwise.
All of us who aren't scientists are still at the 'I'm not a scientist' stage on the issue.
This one doesn’t require scientific qualifications though. He was asked are fossil fuels causing rapid global warming, and he demurred. It’s akin to equivocating on evolution versus intelligent design. In fact no, the physics are significantly more straightforward than the biology behind evolution.
That said I don’t see why it’s of huge relevance to his role in the world bank.
Really? The World Bank, to the extent that it influences investment decisions globally, has a very significant role to play in mitigating and adapting to global warming, surely? And is it not important the President is on board with that?
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
I like and admire Rayner so much that I wish we weren’t going to have an argument. In the week before we meet the headlines were dominated by Isla Bryson, the trans woman convicted of double rape and remanded to a women’s prison before public pressure forced the Scottish Prison Service into a U-turn. Rayner is a big supporter of Labour’s promise to introduce trans self-identification — “The way in which people can transition at the moment is really challenging and very dehumanising” — has insisted “trans women’s rights are women’s rights” and has said it’s “not acceptable” to ask a trans woman if she has a penis......
Is Isla Bryson a woman? “The recent case?” Looking slightly thrown, she starts talking about guidelines, processes, safeguards, circumstances. “So from what I know about the case, I would not have been putting that person in a women-only prison.” But that wasn’t the question, so I ask again....
Bryson, 31, claims to have known she was a woman since she was four. Does that mean she was a woman when she raped her victims? Rayner looks puzzled....
“Well, I don’t know. Because I don’t know what’s inside that person’s head.” I agree, it is impossible for anyone to know. But according to the principle of self-ID, what’s inside someone’s head should determine their legal right to access female-only spaces....
Do these circumstances include the fact that Bryson has a penis? “No, it’s because Isla Bryson has done damage and harm to women.” With? “Yeah, sure, I mean …” She looks cross and flustered. “It doesn’t matter whether it was a penis or some implementation.” I think Bryson’s victims would say her penis played an important part in her crimes. Does the phrase “her penis” even make any sense? “I think … to be honest, I don’t think that particularly matters.”
The Bryson case is important because it exposes the logical implications of allowing a person’s legal gender, irrespective of biology, to be a matter for them simply to decide for themselves. I want to be reassured that Rayner has really thought this through. But she doesn’t seem to have interrogated her own position on this issue very thoroughly at all, and looks increasingly confused when I try to.
It’s when trying to believe nonsense on stilts (that Bryson is a woman) slams into reality.
Perhaps I am showing my own latent conservatism, but I confess I really do not understand why it has become controversial to think that, when it comes to specific legal or safeguarding situations, simply accepting what someone claims to be how they feel is not the way to go, even if it upsets some others. That some risks are severe enough that even expanding the low level likelihood of such instances is a poor idea, when advancing social acceptance of the self-ID'd and protection against discrimination for those people seems more reasonable
The critical point in the Rayner quote to me is where she says she doesn't know what's inside that person's head. Suddenly that inserts a level of external objective consideration of the situation, a quite reasonable insertion. And if it is acceptable in that situation, there will be other such situations. And then others. Can those situations be reduced to the minimal reasonable position? Probably. But some will surely remain.
I've been pondering the current political markets. (Labour overall majority, for example, to lay at 1.61, so 62% chance of that.) As Mike has pointed out in a recent header the magnitude of the swing needed for reality to match market expectation is enormous. (So far as I know unprecidented)
But will it happen?
The Tories aren't in any position to do much about it. Sunak will probably get mildly more popular, and any change at best gets Boris back, and he's not going to turn it round. (All of this seatwise, not anything I want)
Other than the Tories there's noone else in the game. The LDs seem to have taken the monumentally baffling route of just passing by. The SNP can only gift Labour seats, and PC are nowhere. (NI not likely to change much either)
So we're left with Labour's threat to Labour. Now we're talking. This is the big fight, potentially.
The left (who are definitely not going away) have two routes to power - subvert or advertise. They tried the advertise idea with Corbyn, but it didn't work - although it wasn't far off. Subversion therefore has to be plan one, but Starmer is a lumpy obstacle. So it therefore must be back to a shout-it-out campaign.
My guess - Corbyn will run for Mayor.
(If I was a left-wing strategist I'd think that this was pretty much the worst possible course, but whilst I may not be the sharpest tool in the box I beat anyone on the left apart from NPxMP into a paper bag)
The problem with Corbyn for Mayor he would be a Brexiter running for Mayor in Remain Central.
Pretty hard to claim that highlighting that is underhand.
He and the left are going to do something though. I imagine you'd agree. If so, what?
Depends on Corbyn - not very predictable
- Run as an independent? 50/50 I think - More chance of Mayor. But this has more chance of crashing and burning.
He'll surely run as an independent if the intel says he could poll well. Can't see why he wouldn't.
And let the Tories win.
That would really advance the cause of Socialism.
Blame SKS
Oh and an SKS win would really advance the cause of Socialism
Most of us who will vote Labour or other left of centre parties in the next election don’t care about advancing the cause of socialism. We just want a well run economy, good quality public services, and a fair society.
Get none of those via SKS
Austerity, further NHS privatisation and no redistribution of wealth
Thats what SKS is offering and telling you we cant afford anything better
It’s the big test isn’t it? Will he deliver or not?
But I’ve long been at the stage where even if he were a complete dud I’d rather his version of complete dud than the embarrassment that is the current Tory government.
A former now retired colleague shared a room with him at university and described him to me as a full blown lefty. On verra.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
Yes but there will also be some bits of the book that a reader, especially a child, won't experience any dissonance over. Those are the bits more worthy of consideration in my view. Though I think the intellectual condescension point you make is usually more important than reinforcing any prejudices we might have.
2019 "Climate change is the issue of our time & as the XR protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we dont take action.. now we need action"
2022 "Get up, go home. I'm opposed to what your doing.. & thats why we've wanted longer sentences"
Those statements do not necessarily contradict one another. If action has indeed taken place since 2019 as he said was needed, then the same or escalated actions from XR and fellow travellers would not be as praiseworthy.
He’s pathetic. A gift to Lynton Crosby and the Tory machine, who will be gleefully compiling these clips for deployment during the election campaign. Expect to see this and too many other examples on high rotation.
The required action is government getting the country to net zero faster, not an XR protest.
How very dare you suggest those two are not exactly the same thing!?
(In defence of XR I do think they, among others, have successfully helped change political and public opinion on these matters more in the direction of what they want. But some of their actions are still just trivial)
The appointment of this guy’s replacement is arguably more significant.
Poor man. You can't even give an honest answer any more.
If he’s still at the “I’m not a scientist” stage on the issue, then he’s not fit for the post, ‘honest’ or otherwise.
All of us who aren't scientists are still at the 'I'm not a scientist' stage on the issue.
This one doesn’t require scientific qualifications though. He was asked are fossil fuels causing rapid global warming, and he demurred. It’s akin to equivocating on evolution versus intelligent design. In fact no, the physics are significantly more straightforward than the biology behind evolution.
That said I don’t see why it’s of huge relevance to his role in the world bank.
Really? The World Bank, to the extent that it influences investment decisions globally, has a very significant role to play in mitigating and adapting to global warming, surely? And is it not important the President is on board with that?
I don’t think it is, so long as his policies and decisions are not obviously biased. I felt the same about Tim Farron and his evangelism. Personal belief and policy substance can and should be separate. Otherwise we’re into the realms of though crime.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP seem, externally, to be very unprepared for the situation in NI to develop. They seem to be stuck in 'Never, Never, Never, Never' mode, and even when they co-operate they seem on the look out for something to then cause a crisis about. Not unusual historically in NI politics, perhaps, but the others seem to be adopting more flexible attitudes, or at least making the noises about being flexible.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The majority in NI actually voted to Remain, back in 2016.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
Yes but there will also be some bits of the book that a reader, especially a child, won't experience any dissonance over. Those are the bits more worthy of consideration in my view. Though I think the intellectual condescension point you make is usually more important than reinforcing any prejudices we might have.
Even then, and I assume you’re thinking about references to ugliness or fatness or the hobbies of certain characters, there is nothing evidence based about the bowdlerisation. I very much doubt that having Mike TV tote toy guns encourages kids to go and commit school shootings.
The fear is that whatever the merits (and I think there are none in this case but there may be in others) we need to be very alive to the risk of telling portions of the population that their much loved childhood nostalgia is a problem, unless there is compelling evidence. I was a fan of Jim’ll fix it as a child, but it became pretty clear that this wasn’t something you would necessarily want to remember fondly. But Roald Dahl, or indeed the Twitter-hated David Walliams who’s almost up there in the horcrux stakes with JK Rowling, is not Jimmy Saville.
2019 "Climate change is the issue of our time & as the XR protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we dont take action.. now we need action"
2022 "Get up, go home. I'm opposed to what your doing.. & thats why we've wanted longer sentences"
Those statements do not necessarily contradict one another. If action has indeed taken place since 2019 as he said was needed, then the same or escalated actions from XR and fellow travellers would not be as praiseworthy.
He’s pathetic. A gift to Lynton Crosby and the Tory machine, who will be gleefully compiling these clips for deployment during the election campaign. Expect to see this and too many other examples on high rotation.
The required action is government getting the country to net zero faster, not an XR protest.
How very dare you suggest those two are not exactly the same thing!?
(In defence of XR I do think they, among others, have successfully helped change political and public opinion on these matters more in the direction of what they want. But some of their actions are still just trivial)
The appointment of this guy’s replacement is arguably more significant.
Poor man. You can't even give an honest answer any more.
If he’s still at the “I’m not a scientist” stage on the issue, then he’s not fit for the post, ‘honest’ or otherwise.
All of us who aren't scientists are still at the 'I'm not a scientist' stage on the issue.
This one doesn’t require scientific qualifications though. He was asked are fossil fuels causing rapid global warming, and he demurred. It’s akin to equivocating on evolution versus intelligent design. In fact no, the physics are significantly more straightforward than the biology behind evolution.
That said I don’t see why it’s of huge relevance to his role in the world bank.
Really? The World Bank, to the extent that it influences investment decisions globally, has a very significant role to play in mitigating and adapting to global warming, surely? And is it not important the President is on board with that?
I don’t think it is, so long as his policies and decisions are not obviously biased. I felt the same about Tim Farron and his evangelism. Personal belief and policy substance can and should be separate. Otherwise we’re into the realms of though crime.
Ah okay, I see what you mean. Not sure I agree - I think once you are leading something your personal beliefs become important, as you'll ofen be making judgement calls between similar policy solutions. I suspect someone with impeccable integrity and clear-sightedness could keep personal beliefs out of such judgement calls, but most leaders have far too much self-belief for that in my view.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP seem, externally, to be very unprepared for the situation in NI to develop. They seem to be stuck in 'Never, Never, Never, Never' mode, and even when they co-operate they seem on the look out for something to then cause a crisis about. Not unusual historically in NI politics, perhaps, but the others seem to be adopting more flexible attitudes, or at least making the noises about being flexible.
Do they not realise how dependent they are on the UK state? They ought to be careful not to try the government's patience.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
Yes but there will also be some bits of the book that a reader, especially a child, won't experience any dissonance over. Those are the bits more worthy of consideration in my view. Though I think the intellectual condescension point you make is usually more important than reinforcing any prejudices we might have.
Even then, and I assume you’re thinking about references to ugliness or fatness or the hobbies of certain characters, there is nothing evidence based about the bowdlerisation. I very much doubt that having Mike TV tote toy guns encourages kids to go and commit school shootings.
The fear is that whatever the merits (and I think there are none in this case but there may be in others) we need to be very alive to the risk of telling portions of the population that their much loved childhood nostalgia is a problem, unless there is compelling evidence. I was a fan of Jim’ll fix it as a child, but it became pretty clear that this wasn’t something you would necessarily want to remember fondly. But Roald Dahl, or indeed the Twitter-hated David Walliams who’s almost up there in the horcrux stakes with JK Rowling, is not Jimmy Saville.
Agreed entirely on your second paragraph. For me it isn't so much the references to ugliness or fatness, and definitely not hobbies. I was thinking more about the Oompah-Loompahs - I think there is a good case for challenging the tendency to default to men not mixed genders or women, and to characterise women quite thinly and stereotypically. Mr Men is, I think, a case in point. I'd still fall down on the side of 'it does more harm than good to tamper with the stories', though.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
Yes but there will also be some bits of the book that a reader, especially a child, won't experience any dissonance over. Those are the bits more worthy of consideration in my view. Though I think the intellectual condescension point you make is usually more important than reinforcing any prejudices we might have.
Even then, and I assume you’re thinking about references to ugliness or fatness or the hobbies of certain characters, there is nothing evidence based about the bowdlerisation. I very much doubt that having Mike TV tote toy guns encourages kids to go and commit school shootings.
The fear is that whatever the merits (and I think there are none in this case but there may be in others) we need to be very alive to the risk of telling portions of the population that their much loved childhood nostalgia is a problem, unless there is compelling evidence. I was a fan of Jim’ll fix it as a child, but it became pretty clear that this wasn’t something you would necessarily want to remember fondly. But Roald Dahl, or indeed the Twitter-hated David Walliams who’s almost up there in the horcrux stakes with JK Rowling, is not Jimmy Saville.
Very touristy indeed, but very nice. Lots of food stalls and wine / beer vendors, but the crockery and glassware is done centrally, so you can pick up a glass of wine, wander around and find food and so on.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
I went to a performance of Macbeth last night which had the following disclaimer: 'this production has moments of strobe lighting, loud bangs, child mortality, suicide and murder'.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP seem, externally, to be very unprepared for the situation in NI to develop. They seem to be stuck in 'Never, Never, Never, Never' mode, and even when they co-operate they seem on the look out for something to then cause a crisis about. Not unusual historically in NI politics, perhaps, but the others seem to be adopting more flexible attitudes, or at least making the noises about being flexible.
Do they not realise how dependent they are on the UK state? They ought to be careful not to try the government's patience.
The ERG are backing the DUP and without them Sunak has no majority.
Though Beattie's UUP are a bit more open to the proposed Protocol updates than the DUP
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
I went to a performance of Macbeth last night which had the following disclaimer: 'this production has moments of strobe lighting, loud bangs, child mortality, suicide and murder'.
I feel like that disclaimer should either have fewer inclusions, or a lot more if they want to cover off all aspects.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
I went to a performance of Macbeth last night which had the following disclaimer: 'this production has moments of strobe lighting, loud bangs, child mortality, suicide and murder'.
I feel like that disclaimer should either have fewer inclusions, or a lot more if they want to cover off all aspects.
it was a 2 person abridged version although they did not have a disclaimer for the giant bear!
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
I went to a performance of Macbeth last night which had the following disclaimer: 'this production has moments of strobe lighting, loud bangs, child mortality, suicide and murder'.
I feel like that disclaimer should either have fewer inclusions, or a lot more if they want to cover off all aspects.
One of the ones the BBFC uses, often for children's films is "Mild peril".
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
I am currently reading Nevil Shute's "In the Wet". It is really extraordinarily offensive to modern readers, being overtly racist, sexist and classist. It is however a very interesting work on how in 1953 an Anglo-Australian saw the future of the world, and very revealing of the attitudes of the post war Empire and Commonwealth.
The intellectual condescension is another issue that I think risks alienating educated people. The idea we can’t read something and get that the context and time of its authorship were different from now. And children are perfectly capable of the same distinctions. I read my daughter Enid Blyton but she knows that these days 10 year olds don’t just disappear off all day clambering over cliffs and foiling robbers.
I have an unclear set of thoughts on things like trigger warnings. On the one hand we do probably want to know if the movie we are about to watch is a lighthearted comedy or a hardcore porn, in case we are about to sit down to watch it with our grandmother, and we have ratings and advisorys to let us know. (The ones warning about 'language' - not bad language, just language, or 'mild threat' do come across as bizarre on adult products). So a similar thing is perhaps not unreasonable for other types of media and entertainment.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
I went to a performance of Macbeth last night which had the following disclaimer: 'this production has moments of strobe lighting, loud bangs, child mortality, suicide and murder'.
I feel like that disclaimer should either have fewer inclusions, or a lot more if they want to cover off all aspects.
One of the ones the BBFC uses, often for children's films is "Mild peril".
Swear I saw one once for 'mild science fiction themes'. Might have been the ESRB.
On the other hand they do also have content descriptors distinguishing between cartoon or fantasy violance and more realistic depictions, which is sensible, as opposed to the PEGI system in Europe which I don't think does that, at least not in written terms.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP seem, externally, to be very unprepared for the situation in NI to develop. They seem to be stuck in 'Never, Never, Never, Never' mode, and even when they co-operate they seem on the look out for something to then cause a crisis about. Not unusual historically in NI politics, perhaps, but the others seem to be adopting more flexible attitudes, or at least making the noises about being flexible.
Do they not realise how dependent they are on the UK state? They ought to be careful not to try the government's patience.
The ERG are backing the DUP and without them Sunak has no majority.
Though Beattie's UUP are a bit more open to the proposed Protocol updates than the DUP
If Sunak gets the support of the Labour Party over the protocol he does .
You are delusional in your expectations. Johnson needs a military coup to a) keep his DUP, ERG gravy train on the rails and b) to stop Hattie's committee from lining up a recall in Uxbridge.
The DUP will probably be key here. During the Brexit wrangling during the May days there were lots of Tory MPs essentially using them as a proxy to decide how they would fall on a matter. A hardcore would act regardless, but others knew if the DUP said an outcome was unacceptable that was good cover for them to stick to their own resistance.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
The DUP need to be careful. My understanding is that the majority on Northern Ireland accept the protocol even if it isn't ideal. If Sunak can get some kind of improvement - different lanes for goods going only to NI - support there would likely grow and do Tory MPs really want to die in a ditch for a recalcitrant minority in Ulster?
The DUP seem, externally, to be very unprepared for the situation in NI to develop. They seem to be stuck in 'Never, Never, Never, Never' mode, and even when they co-operate they seem on the look out for something to then cause a crisis about. Not unusual historically in NI politics, perhaps, but the others seem to be adopting more flexible attitudes, or at least making the noises about being flexible.
Do they not realise how dependent they are on the UK state? They ought to be careful not to try the government's patience.
The ERG are backing the DUP and without them Sunak has no majority.
Though Beattie's UUP are a bit more open to the proposed Protocol updates than the DUP
If Sunak gets the support of the Labour Party over the protocol he does .
You are delusional in your expectations. Johnson needs a military coup to a) keep his DUP, ERG gravy train on the rails and b) to stop Hattie's committee from lining up a recall in Uxbridge.
I’ll this keep this short for you. Bottom line, you may need to be fair to HY for once.
I can recall a time, when Boris criticised May’s deal as “here’s the kicker, a border in the Irish Sea.”
Okay - but his own deal then created a border in the Irish Sea, because at that point his election ticket was get Brexit done AND the EU were not caving in like they have now. But that’s not the point. The point is there is and always has been very wide support for the point of principle, NO BORDER IN THE IRISH SEA.
It’s not really such a wacky principle for Unionist Parties.
Jimmy Carter has “decided to spend his remaining time at home” in hospice care after a series of short hospital stays, the 98-year-old former president’s family said in a statement on Saturday.
The statement, issued by the Carter Center, said the ex-president’s family “asks for privacy during this time and is grateful for the concern shown by his admirers”.
Carter, a Democrat, was president of the US from 1977 to 1981. He was succeeded by the late Ronald Regan, a Republican.
And England win the test on the morning of the fourth day. I would be very hesitant about buying day 4 tickets for this England team. They are moving matches along at such a pace. It is going to put a real squeeze on the availability of tickets this summer.
So Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan are the first out of the traps in the SNP leadership contest. The only thing I know about Ash Regan is that she resigned instead of supporting the GRR bill. I don’t even know what she resigned from.
Yousaf is better known but not in a good way. A catastrophic period as Justice Minister has been followed by an inept performance as Health Minister. Locally, he is more noted for an attempt to allege racism against a nursery, an action which he abandoned.
Today was the start of a dangerous period for SKS I think. In the culture war stakes.
For the first time in, I think, my life, I momentarily felt the irresistible force of anti-wokeism. They were changing the words to Roald Dahl. And I felt that slight tingle, that muscular reflex, that said:
“all those things you thought were good in your childhood. All the stuff you thought was fun, or wholesome. Now it is bad. And therefore you are bad. We might not say it directly, but we have concluded that you and your ilk are bad”.
So my instinctive reaction was along the lines of “pah, what a load of nonsense. It’s political correctness gone mad”. I grew up on Roald Dahl. Was I a bad person because I enjoyed it, particularly the gruesome bits?
Is this the secret, the key? (Or is “the key, the secret” another thing that’s now bad?). That people react in a visceral way when they feel their childhoods and their youthful pleasures are being degraded and denounced? I think maybe so.
Herein lies a danger for Labour. Nobody really mourns the statue of some obscure slaver, and not many people actually want us to do cruel and degrading things to desperate people crossing the channel in small boats. But some of the soft culture stuff is just designed to say f you to entire generations. It doesn’t feel wise. It’s a gift for the right.
Starmer should ensure in his next interview that he reminisces on his childhood reading the BFG and the Twits, and quote some original and since bowdlerised passages.
It’s a surprisingly blatant attempt to turn them into books that nobody would wish to read.
Literature ought to be problematic, offensive, provocative, for why would an intelligent person wish to read pap?
There's a more technical problem with the whole affair, which so far as I know the Dahl estate are all for presumably out of embarrassment of him being, well, a bit nasty, and that's that no matter how much you employ sensitivity readers to remove anything that could possibly be deemed offensive, some things will remain (never mind also that in some cases they have changed bits that don't seem to be be offensive at all, or are from characters who are meant to be offensive) which someone will be able to moan about. They might not even have moaned before, but if the sensitivity of others is so important why not them too?
As Baddiel noted: The problem with the Dahl bowdlerisation is it has no logical consistency. Here, double chin has been cut, presumably to avoid fat shaming. But what about wonky nose or crooked teeth shaming? Once you start on this path you can end up with blank pages.
Yes, some things in literature are deemed unacceptable, or under some kind of restriction even, and publishers and so some form of editorialising will have been going on, so we're talking about a culturally acceptable line to draw to some extent. But the reason this example has drawn ire is not only that a lot of people remember reading the Dahl books with fondness, but because the extent of the changes and some of the examples are so apt for mockery, done not because of genuine offensiveness but some parody of pearl clutching fear of giving offence, and inserting moralising to boot not just removing content.
Isn't the IP owned outside the Dahl estate, by Netflix? So what the family/executors think is of no importance legally.
Comments
Intellectually, I can discriminate between changes I think are sensible (not assuming all of a particular breed of fictional character are men) and those I think are not (getting rid of the word fat). But I have to overcome an instinctive response like yours to do so. And I think I agree with Casino that I'll still read the old versions to my kids (though probably with a blood pressure considerably lower than his).
Most people don't care as much about this stuff, and won't bother with the cognitive effort needed to get past an instinctive response (nor, necessarily, should they). This is the sort of unimportant topic that can have a viral effect.
I suspect Starmer will avoid getting sucked in, though.
As Baddiel noted:
The problem with the Dahl bowdlerisation is it has no logical consistency. Here, double chin has been cut, presumably to avoid fat shaming. But what about wonky nose or crooked teeth shaming? Once you start on this path you can end up with blank pages.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1627016944015790080?cxt=HHwWgMDS-cnSqZQtAAAA
Yes, some things in literature are deemed unacceptable, or under some kind of restriction even, and publishers and so some form of editorialising will have been going on, so we're talking about a culturally acceptable line to draw to some extent. But the reason this example has drawn ire is not only that a lot of people remember reading the Dahl books with fondness, but because the extent of the changes and some of the examples are so apt for mockery, done not because of genuine offensiveness but some parody of pearl clutching fear of giving offence, and inserting moralising to boot not just removing content.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P9wDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA126&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Austerity, further NHS privatisation and no redistribution of wealth
Thats what SKS is offering and telling you we cant afford anything better
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/18/boris-johnson-threatens-rishi-sunaks-bid-to-end-deadlock-over-brexit
(OTOH, when I met Mrs P. she confidently told me she was allergic to prawns, a few years later she was eating them with no ill-effects. It seems her first experience of prawns involved a dose of e. coli or similar.)
The critical point in the Rayner quote to me is where she says she doesn't know what's inside that person's head. Suddenly that inserts a level of external objective consideration of the situation, a quite reasonable insertion. And if it is acceptable in that situation, there will be other such situations. And then others. Can those situations be reduced to the minimal reasonable position? Probably. But some will surely remain.
But I’ve long been at the stage where even if he were a complete dud I’d rather his version of complete dud than the embarrassment that is the current Tory government.
A former now retired colleague shared a room with him at university and described him to me as a full blown lefty. On verra.
Boris, despite criticising his own protocol, has plenty of reason to be a troublemaker for Sunak and play the principled defender against a new shit deal, but it will be interesting how many he can carry with him, if the DUP claim it is an improvement.
Could anyone recommend somewhere to eat in Madrid? Thanks in advance.
On the other hand it can also feel like a massive spoiler if such warnings are too detailed, or give away things that should probably unfold naturally as part of the story. I read a book recently which had such a warning about the book containing themes relating to domestic abuse and suicide, which I did feel undercut the power of the actual story, since it was a sequel in which those themes had not been present in the first and developed out of the fallout of the events of the first. So just being flatly told 'this is what the book is going to be about' in advance had me constantly anticipating those bits coming up which dimmed my enjoyment.
Remain 56% v. Leave 44%.
The fear is that whatever the merits (and I think there are none in this case but there may be in others) we need to be very alive to the risk of telling portions of the population that their much loved childhood nostalgia is a problem, unless there is compelling evidence. I was a fan of Jim’ll fix it as a child, but it became pretty clear that this wasn’t something you would necessarily want to remember fondly. But Roald Dahl, or indeed the Twitter-hated David Walliams who’s almost up there in the horcrux stakes with JK Rowling, is not Jimmy Saville.
I can see your point about thought crime, though.
For me it isn't so much the references to ugliness or fatness, and definitely not hobbies. I was thinking more about the Oompah-Loompahs - I think there is a good case for challenging the tendency to default to men not mixed genders or women, and to characterise women quite thinly and stereotypically. Mr Men is, I think, a case in point.
I'd still fall down on the side of 'it does more harm than good to tamper with the stories', though.
https://mercadodesanmiguel.es/en/
Very touristy indeed, but very nice. Lots of food stalls and wine / beer vendors, but the crockery and glassware is done centrally, so you can pick up a glass of wine, wander around and find food and so on.
Though Beattie's UUP are a bit more open to the proposed Protocol updates than the DUP
On the other hand they do also have content descriptors distinguishing between cartoon or fantasy violance and more realistic depictions, which is sensible, as opposed to the PEGI system in Europe which I don't think does that, at least not in written terms.
You are delusional in your expectations. Johnson needs a military coup to a) keep his DUP, ERG gravy train on the rails and b) to stop Hattie's committee from lining up a recall in Uxbridge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64677232
"Rachid M'Barki from BFM suspended in scandal linked to disinformation firm"
I can recall a time, when Boris criticised May’s deal as “here’s the kicker, a border in the Irish Sea.”
Okay - but his own deal then created a border in the Irish Sea, because at that point his election ticket was get Brexit done AND the EU were not caving in like they have now. But that’s not the point. The point is there is and always has been very wide support for the point of principle, NO BORDER IN THE IRISH SEA.
It’s not really such a wacky principle for Unionist Parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
Average NI protestant now more likely to go to church than average NI catholic.
Yousaf is better known but not in a good way. A catastrophic period as Justice Minister has been followed by an inept performance as Health Minister. Locally, he is more noted for an attempt to allege racism against a nursery, an action which he abandoned.
@TheCountessIE @DonnellyStephen @NWCI
https://twitter.com/JillKerby/status/1626989624823259136?s=20