Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Part of me hopes ScotGov pushes ahead with this so I can laugh when it inevitably blows up in their faces. It's a scheme so mad only the greens could have thought it up.
In my rural part of Scotland the practical effect will be to replace a single council lorry picking up cans and bottles from the kerb-side every second week with hundreds of individual trips to a DRS machine in the nearest town, with all the extra fuel burning that entails.
It'll be extra horrible for those who don't have a car, having to lug bags full of cans and bottles on the bus...
Thinking a little more about that attack as, I wonder if there is some deeper strategy behind it.
A warning shot, perhaps, in this pre-war stage of the next GE campaign?
*If you want to drag us into the gutter, we’ll fight, but do you really want to go there?*
It did look, to me, up until now, that this was going to be the Tory plan. The evidence of them scraping the barnacles off the boat (cf; Julian Knight et al) pointed in this direction.
But I’m not so sure.
It’s quite possible both lab and con will step back from the brink.
A gentleman’s handshake, so to speak. Like in the thick of episode where the spin doctors negotiate a truce;
Perhaps it’s not possible in this social media environment? I dunno.
If they do drag each other into the gutter, the LD’s and Greens may well overperform?
Or it could be that some evil minded shithead in Labour decided to associate an Indian PM with paedophilia at a point when Pakistani-origin grooming gangs are in the news.
Don’t look for ways to excuse them. It was contemptible
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
The reality is that Labour *do* have a better record, and that the Tory record is atrocious. The fail here is to pin it on Rishi.
Rishi has other / better / more legitimate vulnerabilities.
As pointed out above, the sentencing guidelines are set by a non-political (ha!) group. Including the DPP. Which has a certain potential for blowback…
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
The reality is that Labour *do* have a better record, and that the Tory record is atrocious. The fail here is to pin it on Rishi.
Rishi has other / better / more legitimate vulnerabilities.
As has been pointed out, a lot about whom gets sent to prison and for what is down to sentencing guidelines and the likes. So unless Labour is willing to reform in this area, then it's an empty claim.
Whether this is seen as a sign of confidence or not is a bit of a Rorschach test. Kle4 thinks it's confidence, I think it's Labour worries Sunak may be finding his feet.
I'm guessing if I'm the Conservatives, I'll be letting it rumble on for a while - every Labour politician being interviewed is now going to be asked whether they stand by the poster or not including SKS.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Putney debates? No idea why that was my first thought.
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
Especially since notable, leading Conservative Party ministers & MPs have been working so assiduously, establishing their personal & political status, as scofflaw & lawbreakers?
Degree of push-back itself suggests this may be, or is becoming, an effective electoral message.
But some media luvvies in twitter were annoyed with the first one. Sam West, Jay Rayner and the Sinnnerman.
A lot of liberal commentators are annoyed. Personally I don’t even think they are effective. They are easily mistaken as ads for Rishi himself.
It’s the sense of entitlement of these people. I voted for you and you did this. How dare you.
I don’t know whether it’s effective or not. I live in a red wall seat. Law and order is a concern and there is a feeling some crimes are effectively decriminalised as the police don’t bother with them. Often on local Facebook groups I see people who had stuff stolen off their property who claim to have contacted the police and offered them CCTV but heard nothing back..
Not all will be lying or wrong.
Whether the govt or the labour PCC get the blame remains to be seen. Although we are not voting in May other areas up here are.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
Sadly I am too proletarian to have anything like a first-hand opinion. As a place to visit, though, Cambridge beats Oxford. The latter is a kind of tourist-infested tat-town.
Oxford tends to be warmer though.
Friend of mine went to Fenland Tech in the 1970s. He told me about his college lodgings and how the ice formed in his bedside glass of water!
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
Putney Debates?
I’m actually about 500 yards from that church at the moment.
no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
There is a line I crossed a bit ago, one Shakespeare's stages of man I suppose, when you move from famous people you have heard of dying to famous people you have never heard of dying. Am I the only PBer who has literally never heard of him?
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
NOTE that income levels are affected by number of factors on local level, including counties with high % of college students or retirees (such as in southern Florida) which have lower medians; also whether a county includes the bulk of a metropolitan area (such as Seattle = King County WA) OR the metro is split between several counties (such as Portland = Multnomah, Clackamas & Washington counties in OR and Clark Co WA).
What a beautiful day it is. 16 degrees here in the South East and pure sunshine.
It's lovely here in Wiltshire too
It was quite nice yesterday, until I suddenly got hit by a horribly hard hailstorm; there were hailstones bouncing off the pavement around me back up to about waist level
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Cambridge is still a proper university in this respect (last time I looked anyway): If you do philosophy you can't do it with anything else. In Oxford you can only do philosophy with other stuff cluttering it up, like PPE. Like Merton's finest, Liz Truss.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Putney debates? No idea why that was my first thought.
Edit: Spooky.
Fields in Putney? I thought they were in St Mary's Church - there was an annoying vicar-columnist who used to write about it, and restarted something with a similar name.
I was wondering about Pendle Witch Trials, but that was not political enough.
I'll go for the great Chartist Meeting of 1838 at Kersal Moor.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Cambridge is still a proper university in this respect (last time I looked anyway): If you do philosophy you can't do it with anything else. In Oxford you can only do philosophy with other stuff cluttering it up, like PPE. Like Merton's finest, Liz Truss.
I’d like to point out the number of Nobel Laureates Cambridge had produced compared to the other place.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Cambridge is still a proper university in this respect (last time I looked anyway): If you do philosophy you can't do it with anything else. In Oxford you can only do philosophy with other stuff cluttering it up, like PPE. Like Merton's finest, Liz Truss.
I’d like to point out the number of Nobel Laureates Cambridge had produced compared to the other place.
It's because Cambridge has so many knockers compared to Oxford.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Cambridge is still a proper university in this respect (last time I looked anyway): If you do philosophy you can't do it with anything else. In Oxford you can only do philosophy with other stuff cluttering it up, like PPE. Like Merton's finest, Liz Truss.
(My emphasis.) Not simultaneously, but you can do philosophy in Year 1* or Year 2* and another subject in Year 3*, or vice versa.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Cambridge is still a proper university in this respect (last time I looked anyway): If you do philosophy you can't do it with anything else. In Oxford you can only do philosophy with other stuff cluttering it up, like PPE. Like Merton's finest, Liz Truss.
I’d like to point out the number of Nobel Laureates Cambridge had produced compared to the other place.
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
As I've suggested on previous occasions, the reason Jeremy Corbyn outperformed expectations in 2017 was not Theresa May's strong and stable death tax but that the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the campaign turned it into a law and order election, and the blue team had axed 10,000 coppers.
Boris (and/or CCHQ) clearly agreed with this analysis because in 2019 the Conservatives stood on recruiting the same number of police they'd cut.
That said, these posters seem a bit tacky and imply the Prime Minister sits at the Old Bailey on his days off.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
Haha - no. Clue: It's cyclable from South Manchester. Also, it was around 26 years ago today, give or take a week or two.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Oxford for politics, Cambridge for comedy. Oxford Union or Cambridge Footlights. For years there was almost a direct line from Footlights to BBC.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
Haha - no. Clue: It's cyclable from South Manchester. Also, it was around 26 years ago today, give or take a week or two.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
Haha - no. Clue: It's cyclable from South Manchester. Also, it was around 26 years ago today, give or take a week or two.
Still a field?
Swampy, then. Looking up, Manchester Airport or a road.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Kwasi Kwarteng was Eton then Cambridge, then Harvard, then Odey Asset Management, then MP, then Chancellor...
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
He'll be badgered about that for ever.
Aren't you Oop North somewhere?
Someone made a speech.
Yes, it's cyclable from Greater Manchester. Not a speech as such - not a planned one at any rate. It was in the build up to the 1997 GE.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
Haha - no. Clue: It's cyclable from South Manchester. Also, it was around 26 years ago today, give or take a week or two.
That lets out Peterloo.
No, but it was a confrontation - albeit a really, really feeble one.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
He'll be badgered about that for ever.
Aren't you Oop North somewhere?
Someone made a speech.
Yes, it's cyclable from Greater Manchester. Not a speech as such - not a planned one at any rate. It was in the build up to the 1997 GE.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Oxford for politics, Cambridge for comedy. Oxford Union or Cambridge Footlights. For years there was almost a direct line from Footlights to BBC.
Tristram Hunt: UCS to Cambridge to Footlights to BBC TV shows to MP to Labour (opposition) Front Bench to running a museum.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Having gone to Oxford (but having no idea re Cambridge), I would say a few things:
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Kwasi Kwarteng was Eton then Cambridge, then Harvard, then Odey Asset Management, then MP, then Chancellor...
He's very bright, charming, and you're a friend of his, right?
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
He'll be badgered about that for ever.
Aren't you Oop North somewhere?
Someone made a speech.
Yes, it's cyclable from Greater Manchester. Not a speech as such - not a planned one at any rate. It was in the build up to the 1997 GE.
Hmmm./ The build up?
Martin Bell standing for Tatton. First Independent for nearly half a century.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Ron Davies receiving fellatio?
He'll be badgered about that for ever.
Aren't you Oop North somewhere?
Someone made a speech.
Yes, it's cyclable from Greater Manchester. Not a speech as such - not a planned one at any rate. It was in the build up to the 1997 GE.
Hmmm./ The build up?
Martin Bell standing for Tatton. First Independent for nearly half a century.
Struggling with why he would do it in a field.
Yes, it was Martin Bell! (Well done also to @ydoethur). Specifically, the Battle of Knutsford Heath - a mithering argument between Martin Bell and some hangers-on, and Neil and Christine Hamilton and the actor who played Ken Barlow.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Yes. I went to Cambridge and found the place a bit full of itself, elitist… And then I went to Oxford and it was way more like that.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
Sadly I am too proletarian to have anything like a first-hand opinion. As a place to visit, though, Cambridge beats Oxford. The latter is a kind of tourist-infested tat-town.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
How did they miss that CEO salary was missing for 8 years
Comments
No mucking about, they are just 'The Good Party'. Who's arguing with that, eh?
In my rural part of Scotland the practical effect will be to replace a single council lorry picking up cans and bottles from the kerb-side every second week with hundreds of individual trips to a DRS machine in the nearest town, with all the extra fuel burning that entails.
It'll be extra horrible for those who don't have a car, having to lug bags full of cans and bottles on the bus...
Don’t look for ways to excuse them. It was contemptible
Whether this is seen as a sign of confidence or not is a bit of a Rorschach test. Kle4 thinks it's confidence, I think it's Labour worries Sunak may be finding his feet.
I'm guessing if I'm the Conservatives, I'll be letting it rumble on for a while - every Labour politician being interviewed is now going to be asked whether they stand by the poster or not including SKS.
Edit: Spooky.
*Is that necessarily legal?
Degree of push-back itself suggests this may be, or is becoming, an effective electoral message.
I don’t know whether it’s effective or not. I live in a red wall seat. Law and order is a concern and there is a feeling some crimes are effectively decriminalised as the police don’t bother with them. Often on local Facebook groups I see people who had stuff stolen off their property who claim to have contacted the police and offered them CCTV but heard nothing back..
Not all will be lying or wrong.
Whether the govt or the labour PCC get the blame remains to be seen. Although we are not voting in May other areas up here are.
no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.
1. I might be wrong but I certainly got the impression that the major Public Schools sent their pupils to Oxford not Cambridge. Part is probably down to some (remnant) links between such schools and individual colleges but a lot will be down to the old system of an Exam + 2 Es. For example, I probably know five people off hand who did Eton + Oxford but I don't know of anyone who did Eton + Cambridge (I knew them all post-university).
2. Cambridge doesn't have the equivalent of Oxford's PPE so if you are a political type and wants to go into politics afterwards, Oxford has a natural draw that Cambridge doesn't.
3. Don't underestimated the power of the Oxford Union. It both trains political types for power and also has a big brand appeal to outsiders. If you get elected there, you have a good route access to politics from the start.
Someone made a speech.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/12e8eyf/united_states_median_household_income_by_county/
NOTE that income levels are affected by number of factors on local level, including counties with high % of college students or retirees (such as in southern Florida) which have lower medians; also whether a county includes the bulk of a metropolitan area (such as Seattle = King County WA) OR the metro is split between several counties (such as Portland = Multnomah, Clackamas & Washington counties in OR and Clark Co WA).
It was quite nice yesterday, until I suddenly got hit by a horribly hard hailstorm; there were hailstones bouncing off the pavement around me back up to about waist level
https://twitter.com/drsimevans/status/1644341617732599808
I await a £4k BEV…
I was wondering about Pendle Witch Trials, but that was not political enough.
I'll go for the great Chartist Meeting of 1838 at Kersal Moor.
It would sweep every other car manufacturer off the board in minutes.
Somehow I don't see it though.
* Called some fancy Cambridge names.
Boris (and/or CCHQ) clearly agreed with this analysis because in 2019 the Conservatives stood on recruiting the same number of police they'd cut.
That said, these posters seem a bit tacky and imply the Prime Minister sits at the Old Bailey on his days off.
https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1644339059215548416?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Swampy, then. Looking up, Manchester Airport or a road.
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/new-cheapest-ev-2023-byd-seagull-coming-soon-but-will-the-chinese-brands-smallest-electric
I actually think it quite likely for small citycars.
How did he get it so wrong?
Appeals court panel has *reversed* the decision of Judge Nichols that would have tossed obstruction charges against hundreds Jan. 6 defendants.
Opinion should be posted imminently. Seems complicated -- decision was 2-1 with a concurrence and a dissent.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1644344873103896580
Martin Bell standing for Tatton. First Independent for nearly half a century.
Struggling with why he would do it in a field.
Is Alistair Campbell advising them
I view of Starmer's role in the sentencing council Labour have opened a can of worms that is not going to do them any favours
https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1644365486476390403