Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer should do PMQs even when Sunak isn’t there – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,047
edited July 2023 in General
imageStarmer should do PMQs even when Sunak isn’t there – politicalbetting.com

One thing we are learning about Sunak is that he doesn’t like PMQs and his team is going to great lengths to restrict the number of his appearances. Hence this last week and next we find that the PM will not be facing the Commons and Starmer.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551
    edited July 2023
    First?

    Yes Starmer should crack on in Rishi's absense.

    So this is what all the fuss was about.

    Honest Bob Jenrick, patriotic national treasure or callous barsteward.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/07/robert-jenrick-has-cartoon-murals-painted-over-at-childrens-asylum-centre
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023

    Truss was and remains nuts.

    But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth and it’s pretty much the most important thing.

    Few others politicians actually get that, certainly not Rishi, who seems to regard growth as an abstract quantity. Rishi is not stupid, but I do wonder whether he simply can’t - protected as he is by squillions - understand it on a primal level.

    What is really unfathomable is that both Rishi and Hunt had real world experience before politics in finance / business, but so many decisions they have made are straight out of Gordon Brown playbook with little regard that they are best not going to help growth, at worst, inhibit it further.

    The NI++ was absolutely f##king moronic. Both politically and economically.

    There also seem no ideas about how to tackle issues around productivity.
    Rishi is the same age as me.
    He learned his economics at the peak moment of neo-liberal (or neo-classical) triumph, and he hasn’t had the time or curiosity to update.

    He’s very intelligent, but I don’t think he’s very curious.

    Compare with John Major, who is really only of middling intelligence but spent months reading up on foreign policy upon accepting the Foreign Secretaryship.
    You don't need to be up to date with the current economic thinking to realise that adding a new tax on work / employment is a really bad idea both economically and politically. Firstly you just taxing everybody more, secondly you are taxing jobs more and thirdly if you come from a party that is supposedly low tax you just trashing your brand adding a new tax (and making it easier for your opponents to keep tweaking that to raise more cash).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Rather than Starmer taking over PMQs, it might be better to prime Angela Rayner to draw attention to Sunak's absenteeism.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023

    Rather than Starmer taking over PMQs, it might be better to prime Angela Rayner to draw attention to Sunak's absenteeism.

    I would also suggest that when your retail offering is no more chaos, no more doing dodgy things with the parliamentary processes, I always stick to the rules etc, taking an approach of breaking convention isn't a great look for you brand.

    Also he doesn't need to do anything. He is winning regardless and effect on PMQs on the outside world is massively overblown, its just noise to most people (it is as much about rallying your own troops).
  • Rather than Starmer taking over PMQs, it might be better to prime Angela Rayner to draw attention to Sunak's absenteeism.

    I would also suggest that when your retail offering is no more chaos, no more doing dodgy things with the parliamentary processes, I always stick to the rules etc, taking an approach of breaking convention isn't a great look for you brand.

    Also he doesn't need to do anything. He is winning regardless and effect on PMQs on the outside world is massively overblown, its just noise to most people (it is as much about rallying your own troops).
    Yes, looking at the opinion polls I'm not sure Starmer is exactly crying into his corn flakes about having fewer opportunities to do PMQs ...
  • Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    There is a good rule of thumb in life which is "ignore everything before the but".

    Anyone who says "I'm not racist but *racist thing here*" has demonstrated that they quite clearly are racist.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    There is a good rule of thumb in life which is "ignore everything before the but".

    Anyone who says "I'm not racist but *racist thing here*" has demonstrated that they quite clearly are racist.
    What you are saying here is correct but it's correct
    There is a huge difference between not wanting a neighbour of a different colour and objecting to immigration changing the face of the country for example to switching from majority christian to majority muslim. Your view seems to be that people should get no say on the latter.

    The first is racist, the second in my view is not
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162
    edited July 2023
    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.
  • From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759

    Truss was and remains nuts.

    But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth and it’s pretty much the most important thing.

    Few others politicians actually get that, certainly not Rishi, who seems to regard growth as an abstract quantity. Rishi is not stupid, but I do wonder whether he simply can’t - protected as he is by squillions - understand it on a primal level.

    What is really unfathomable is that both Rishi and Hunt had real world experience before politics in finance / business, but so many decisions they have made are straight out of Gordon Brown playbook with little regard that they are best not going to help growth, at worst, inhibit it further.

    The NI++ was absolutely f##king moronic. Both politically and economically.

    There also seem no ideas about how to tackle issues around productivity.
    Rishi is the same age as me.
    He learned his economics at the peak moment of neo-liberal (or neo-classical) triumph, and he hasn’t had the time or curiosity to update.

    He’s very intelligent, but I don’t think he’s very curious.

    Compare with John Major, who is really only of middling intelligence but spent months reading up on foreign policy upon accepting the Foreign Secretaryship.
    You don't need to be up to date with the current economic thinking to realise that adding a new tax on work / employment is a really bad idea both economically and politically. Firstly you just taxing everybody more, secondly you are taxing jobs more and thirdly if you come from a party that is supposedly low tax you just trashing your brand adding a new tax (and making it easier for your opponents to keep tweaking that to raise more cash).
    With every problem, there comes an opportunity.

    Labour shortages and big wage rises mean that employers will have to give serious thought to investment.

    Price rises caused by external shocks mean we can no longer rely upon imports of cheap goods to keep down inflation.

    Interest rate rises mean we can't rely upon ever increasing asset prices, and that zombie companies will go under.

    But, it requires new ways of thinking.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,037
    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.
  • Sean_F said:

    Truss was and remains nuts.

    But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth and it’s pretty much the most important thing.

    Few others politicians actually get that, certainly not Rishi, who seems to regard growth as an abstract quantity. Rishi is not stupid, but I do wonder whether he simply can’t - protected as he is by squillions - understand it on a primal level.

    What is really unfathomable is that both Rishi and Hunt had real world experience before politics in finance / business, but so many decisions they have made are straight out of Gordon Brown playbook with little regard that they are best not going to help growth, at worst, inhibit it further.

    The NI++ was absolutely f##king moronic. Both politically and economically.

    There also seem no ideas about how to tackle issues around productivity.
    Rishi is the same age as me.
    He learned his economics at the peak moment of neo-liberal (or neo-classical) triumph, and he hasn’t had the time or curiosity to update.

    He’s very intelligent, but I don’t think he’s very curious.

    Compare with John Major, who is really only of middling intelligence but spent months reading up on foreign policy upon accepting the Foreign Secretaryship.
    You don't need to be up to date with the current economic thinking to realise that adding a new tax on work / employment is a really bad idea both economically and politically. Firstly you just taxing everybody more, secondly you are taxing jobs more and thirdly if you come from a party that is supposedly low tax you just trashing your brand adding a new tax (and making it easier for your opponents to keep tweaking that to raise more cash).
    With every problem, there comes an opportunity.

    Labour shortages and big wage rises mean that employers will have to give serious thought to investment.

    Price rises caused by external shocks mean we can no longer rely upon imports of cheap goods to keep down inflation.

    Interest rate rises mean we can't rely upon ever increasing asset prices, and that zombie companies will go under.

    But, it requires new ways of thinking.
    Completely agreed.

    What a shame we have a zombie government in place that's doing absolutely nothing to create a competitive environment where those opportunities can be realised.

    Instead they just seem to want to further sweat wages for taxes to protect those asset prices and shield those not working from paying for what they require.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551
    ...

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    It might be a cheap, below the belt shot, but if it gains traction despite being false, it could destroy Starmer.

    If winning at any cost to keep the gravy train rolling is the aim. Why not?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023
    With the GO email thing and now BBC presenter story, a load of people on twitter are giving lawyers their Christmas bonuses.....people never leaen.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,258

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    I'm expecting the Tory GE24 campaign to plumb new depths for UK politics.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    Maybe Sunak pick up some tips from the Australians when he visited the cricket last week....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551

    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.

    Well Rishi can't make one day each week so two might be an unreasonable expectation.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    edited July 2023

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Looks like the Times has been listening to a rentaquote backbencher who has no idea but dimly remembers Boris trying it.

    ETA the Savile smear will come as a deniable, below the radar, social media attack, not at PMQs or the Number 10 lectern.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314

    ...

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    It might be a cheap, below the belt shot, but if it gains traction despite being false, it could destroy Starmer.

    If winning at any cost to keep the gravy train rolling is the aim. Why not?
    Lawyers think it’s a low blow, but everyone else says well, he was actually in charge of the organisation that made the decision.

    I’d rather the Tories didn’t go there though. We see from the States, where negative campaigning gets us, way more heat than light.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643

    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.

    Yet not one of his six successors has sought to reverse that change - instead of a cheap jibe against Blair, why not ask Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak why they haven't re-instated the two 15-minute sessions?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
    All Sunak has left is mud to fling - standing on the Government's record, trying to explain and describe the Conservative future of mid to late 2020s Britain - he can't do any of that. He's finished and he knows it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,327
    Even political nerds have a limited tolerance for PMQs these days. Neither of the main contenders have a hint of wit or imagination about them. Whether SKS bores someone other than Sunak is not going to make a whit of a difference either way.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023
    stodge said:

    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.

    Yet not one of his six successors has sought to reverse that change - instead of a cheap jibe against Blair, why not ask Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak why they haven't re-instated the two 15-minute sessions?
    In hindsight, 2 x 15 min sessions seems really silly. The opposition don't get to ask a series of probing questions and also the PM having to book periods on 2 separate days seems inefficient use of time (as its not just the 15mins, its all the messing about to get a PM there and back which wouldn't be surprised if that is still 2hrs of time regardless of if its 15 or 30 min session).

    Now when you only have 1 x 30 min session, your excuses for not attending is really dog eat my homework.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,539
    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    kinabalu said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    I'm expecting the Tory GE24 campaign to plumb new depths for UK politics.
    The cheers when Jenrick loses in Newark and Anderson is overturned in Ashfield will be audible across the country. It's a pity the likes of Dowden, Braverman and Badenoch will survive even the worst defeat but it will be the end of their malign influence with any luck.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    There is a good rule of thumb in life which is "ignore everything before the but".

    Anyone who says "I'm not racist but *racist thing here*" has demonstrated that they quite clearly are racist.
    What you are saying here is correct but it's correct
    There is a huge difference between not wanting a neighbour of a different colour and objecting to immigration changing the face of the country for example to switching from majority christian to majority muslim. Your view seems to be that people should get no say on the latter.

    The first is racist, the second in my view is not
    You know, it's almost a daily occurrence that you tell me what my "view" seems to be, and you are consistently wrong.

    My own view on religion is that everybody should give it up because it's silly. But I'm not going to vote for a party that discriminates between potential migrants on the basis of their religion. I don't see the role of government as being one that engineers the country to be more like me in a racial or religious way.

    Other people are at completely liberty to vote to "keep" the UK "white", and I'm at liberty to suggest that such a racially motivated action is, well, racially motivated.

    Just to go back to the first point, you're continued misinterpretation of what I'm saying. Can I gently suggest you take the time to read my posts for their content and not to harvest the obviously fertile meadows of your imagination for what I think. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so routinely wrong.
    See you say I am misinterpreting you then say exactly what I claimed you said. The government and people of a country should get no say on who comes in. Well sorry I value a secular liberal state. A lot of immigrants come from places where that is not valued, whether through religon or whatever. Bring enough in that don't value a secular liberal state and they get a plurality then it's a bit late to cry if there are stonings in hyde park etc.

    I would equally object to taking in 20 million westboro baptists as I would 20 millions fundamentalist muslims. The more people that come here that don't value a secular liberal state then the more chance we end up losing it.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,860
    Completely off topic, but important. I think this William Broad piece in the New York Times is worth paying for: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/science/3-body-problem-nuclear-china.html (Worth paying for is my highest grade, above even worth studying.)

    Broad argues that the tri-polar nuclear weapons world that is developing is inherently less stable than our current bipolar world. (I agree, and have had similar thoughts for some time, though not nearly as well expressed.)

    We made considerable progress in reducing nuclear weapons, when there were just two nations with large stock piles. Among American leaders, I would give the largest credit for that success to George H. W. Bush. But even Barack Obama, incompetent as he is, was able to achieve some reductions.

    I do not see an obvous diplomatic strategy to follow. But there are some bright commenters here. Perhaps one of them can make some suggestions.

    (Physicists will like his metaphor, even if, like me, they are distressed by his conclusion.)

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    Who is “we” here?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,539
    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    I'm expecting the Tory GE24 campaign to plumb new depths for UK politics.
    The cheers when Jenrick loses in Newark and Anderson is overturned in Ashfield will be audible across the country. It's a pity the likes of Dowden, Braverman and Badenoch will survive even the worst defeat but it will be the end of their malign influence with any luck.
    Are you following political events in the rest of Europe? It suggests this trend is going to get worse not better.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    Sean_F said:


    With every problem, there comes an opportunity.

    Labour shortages and big wage rises mean that employers will have to give serious thought to investment.

    Price rises caused by external shocks mean we can no longer rely upon imports of cheap goods to keep down inflation.

    Interest rate rises mean we can't rely upon ever increasing asset prices, and that zombie companies will go under.

    But, it requires new ways of thinking.

    Indeed and investing in technology and improving business processes to drive out efficiency savings should be something every organisation is doing. Instead, the solution is another pair of hands as labour is cheap.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    If Sunak reprises the Jimmy Savile stuff, Labour would be delighted as it would smack of utter desperation.

    If Sunak wants to attack Starmer personally, he'd be better finding something else. But I suspect there isn't much to find. Starmer's cupboard is, I think, pretty devoid of skeletons.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,605

    Completely off topic, but important. I think this William Broad piece in the New York Times is worth paying for: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/science/3-body-problem-nuclear-china.html (Worth paying for is my highest grade, above even worth studying.)

    Broad argues that the tri-polar nuclear weapons world that is developing is inherently less stable than our current bipolar world. (I agree, and have had similar thoughts for some time, though not nearly as well expressed.)

    We made considerable progress in reducing nuclear weapons, when there were just two nations with large stock piles. Among American leaders, I would give the largest credit for that success to George H. W. Bush. But even Barack Obama, incompetent as he is, was able to achieve some reductions.

    I do not see an obvous diplomatic strategy to follow. But there are some bright commenters here. Perhaps one of them can make some suggestions.

    (Physicists will like his metaphor, even if, like me, they are distressed by his conclusion.)

    Defeat Russia and bring it into NATO?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,539

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    Who is “we” here?
    The population as a whole but particularly those born here and without migrant parents.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    There is a good rule of thumb in life which is "ignore everything before the but".

    Anyone who says "I'm not racist but *racist thing here*" has demonstrated that they quite clearly are racist.
    What you are saying here is correct but it's correct
    There is a huge difference between not wanting a neighbour of a different colour and objecting to immigration changing the face of the country for example to switching from majority christian to majority muslim. Your view seems to be that people should get no say on the latter.

    The first is racist, the second in my view is not
    You know, it's almost a daily occurrence that you tell me what my "view" seems to be, and you are consistently wrong.

    My own view on religion is that everybody should give it up because it's silly. But I'm not going to vote for a party that discriminates between potential migrants on the basis of their religion. I don't see the role of government as being one that engineers the country to be more like me in a racial or religious way.

    Other people are at completely liberty to vote to "keep" the UK "white", and I'm at liberty to suggest that such a racially motivated action is, well, racially motivated.

    Just to go back to the first point, you're continued misinterpretation of what I'm saying. Can I gently suggest you take the time to read my posts for their content and not to harvest the obviously fertile meadows of your imagination for what I think. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so routinely wrong.
    See you say I am misinterpreting you then say exactly what I claimed you said. The government and people of a country should get no say on who comes in

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    Who is “we” here?
    It is maintaining the uk as a secular liberal state. That is the culture most want protected.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    On the contrary, I think we are trying to protect a sort of enlightenment consensus position which owes remarkably little to Christianity and is firmly anti-Christian if and to the extent that Christianity is anti-gay, and is firmly anti-muslim if and to the extent that Islam is anti-prophet pics
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    Government has collapsed in the Netherlands. Early election likely?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551
    ...
    Sandpit said:

    ...

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    It might be a cheap, below the belt shot, but if it gains traction despite being false, it could destroy Starmer.

    If winning at any cost to keep the gravy train rolling is the aim. Why not?
    Lawyers think it’s a low blow, but everyone else says well, he was actually in charge of the organisation that made the decision.

    I’d rather the Tories didn’t go there though. We see from the States, where negative campaigning gets us, way more heat than light.
    Although the dates didn't really correspond although there was overlap.

    I think for the Conservatives and their media shills they are now so desperate it doesn't matter whether an allegation has any foundation, but what damage can be exacted, fairly or unfairly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,327
    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,605
    Miklosvar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    On the contrary, I think we are trying to protect a sort of enlightenment consensus position which owes remarkably little to Christianity and is firmly anti-Christian if and to the extent that Christianity is anti-gay, and is firmly anti-muslim if and to the extent that Islam is anti-prophet pics
    To make the same point slightly differently, we are trying to protect the illusion that religion and culture can be just private matters.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Looks like the Times has been listening to a rentaquote backbencher who has no idea but dimly remembers Boris trying it.

    ETA the Savile smear will come as a deniable, below the radar, social media attack, not at PMQs or the Number 10 lectern.
    Sunak's USP at one stage was that he said "I wouldn't have said it" when johnson said it. I don't believe he can do this.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,544
    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551

    If Sunak reprises the Jimmy Savile stuff, Labour would be delighted as it would smack of utter desperation.

    If Sunak wants to attack Starmer personally, he'd be better finding something else. But I suspect there isn't much to find. Starmer's cupboard is, I think, pretty devoid of skeletons.

    It would be a mistake for Sunak to go gutter low and personal himself. However accusatory questions aimed at Starmer via the Prime Minister from 30p Lee, Miriam Cates and Jonathan Gullis might have an effect. They also have the advantage of Parliamentary Privilege.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,092

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    At least Rishi can fall back on his daddy-in-law's billions when this country goes to complete shit!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643

    stodge said:

    kinabalu said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    I'm expecting the Tory GE24 campaign to plumb new depths for UK politics.
    The cheers when Jenrick loses in Newark and Anderson is overturned in Ashfield will be audible across the country. It's a pity the likes of Dowden, Braverman and Badenoch will survive even the worst defeat but it will be the end of their malign influence with any luck.
    Are you following political events in the rest of Europe? It suggests this trend is going to get worse not better.
    Indeed but we are not Europe and politically we don't always align. Incumbent Governments have struggled really from 2020 onward with the pandemic and the post-pandemic economic impacts followed by the war in Ukraine.

    There are of course exceptions - Greece being one though I'd argue ND's victory was less impressive than seemed likely a few months back.

    In Holland, Norway, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Germany and Denmark the incumbent Government has lost ground or is struggling against opponents on one or both flanks. In Italy, the FdL are in under Meloni but it remains to be seen if they have any answers.

    Whether the challengers are Chega (Portugal), VOX (Spain), AfD (Germany) or BBB (Holland), the message of anti-immigrant populism is similar - is it "right wing"? No, not really, much of what these parties support is actually more socialist in nature with a lot of State intervention.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Have we done this?

    Combines two of PB's favourite topics, the cheating Aussies and a cashless society.

    A controversy-filled Ashes series took its most absurd turn yet when Cricket Australia vehemently denied suggestions that wicketkeeper-batsman Alex Carey walked out of a Leeds barber without paying a £30 bill.

    Sir Alastair Cook, the former England captain, claimed on BBC Test Match Special that, when having a pre-Test haircut, he had got chatting to his barber.

    “The barber says the Australians had been in,” Cook said. “He didn’t know his cricket very well, so he was telling me what they looked like.

    “He said Marnus [Labuschagne], the funny one. Then David Warner had a haircut, Usman [Khawaja] had a haircut and he says, ‘Oh there’s another one …’

    “He says, ‘One of them, I think Alex is his name’. I said, ‘Alex Carey, wicketkeeper?’

    “He says, ‘He hasn’t paid’. It was one of those cash-only barbers, and he promised him he would do a transfer later on in the day.

    “True story. He might have paid by now.”

    The barber, Adam Mahmood of Doc Barnet’s Barber Shop, explained his version of events to the Sun.

    “They all came in just before we shut,” he said. “We cut their hair and had a great laugh.

    “But we don’t accept cards and Alex said he had no cash on him.

    “Well, there’s a Tesco cash machine literally round the corner he could have run to. He could have nipped back to their hotel and been no more than five minutes but instead he said he would transfer it.

    “Maybe he forgot. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt but if it’s not paid by Monday, I won’t be happy.”

    Remarkably, the Australia camp reacted angrily to the suggestion that Carey has not paid, saying that he had not even had a haircut in Leeds and that while another player had been to the barber’s, he had paid. They said they would return with the receipt later on Saturday to clear up any confusion.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/08/alex-carey-barber-alastair-cook-leeds-australia-headingley/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,676

    If Sunak reprises the Jimmy Savile stuff, Labour would be delighted as it would smack of utter desperation.

    If Sunak wants to attack Starmer personally, he'd be better finding something else. But I suspect there isn't much to find. Starmer's cupboard is, I think, pretty devoid of skeletons.

    We cannot know this, but then we cannot know what skeletons may lurk in Sunak's closet, so I doubt it's in anyone's interests to start fighting dirty.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    Andy_JS said:

    Government has collapsed in the Netherlands. Early election likely?

    The current governing parties won't want one because of the rise of the populist BBB. I suspect Rutte will cobble together another coalition soone ror later.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,637
    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Government has collapsed in the Netherlands. Early election likely?

    The current governing parties won't want one because of the rise of the populist BBB. I suspect Rutte will cobble together another coalition soone ror later.
    Experts on the ground are clearing the agenda for November.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Sunak's a snivelling hypocritical little shit if he attacks Starmer over Savile.

    From February 2022.

    Rishi Sunak has distanced himself from Boris Johnson's comments on Sir Keir Starmer and Jimmy Savile, as he was quizzed on the resignation of the Prime Minister's head of policy.

    The Chancellor was questioned in the wake of Munira Mirza's resignation, who condemned the Prime Minister's "inappropriate" slur at Sir Keir Starmer.

    Mr Johnson made a disproved claim in the Commons on Monday that Sir Keir failed to prosecute Savile when he was director of public prosecutions.

    He said: "Instead this leader of the opposition - a former director of public prosecution who used his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can see - he chose to use this moment to continually pre-judge a police inquiry."

    Mr Sunak later told a press conference: "Being honest I wouldn't have said it and I'm glad that the Prime Minister clarified what he meant."


    https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/boris-johnson-backtracks-jimmy-savile-starmer-slur/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,327

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314

    Have we done this?

    Combines two of PB's favourite topics, the cheating Aussies and a cashless society.

    A controversy-filled Ashes series took its most absurd turn yet when Cricket Australia vehemently denied suggestions that wicketkeeper-batsman Alex Carey walked out of a Leeds barber without paying a £30 bill.

    Sir Alastair Cook, the former England captain, claimed on BBC Test Match Special that, when having a pre-Test haircut, he had got chatting to his barber.

    “The barber says the Australians had been in,” Cook said. “He didn’t know his cricket very well, so he was telling me what they looked like.

    “He said Marnus [Labuschagne], the funny one. Then David Warner had a haircut, Usman [Khawaja] had a haircut and he says, ‘Oh there’s another one …’

    “He says, ‘One of them, I think Alex is his name’. I said, ‘Alex Carey, wicketkeeper?’

    “He says, ‘He hasn’t paid’. It was one of those cash-only barbers, and he promised him he would do a transfer later on in the day.

    “True story. He might have paid by now.”

    The barber, Adam Mahmood of Doc Barnet’s Barber Shop, explained his version of events to the Sun.

    “They all came in just before we shut,” he said. “We cut their hair and had a great laugh.

    “But we don’t accept cards and Alex said he had no cash on him.

    “Well, there’s a Tesco cash machine literally round the corner he could have run to. He could have nipped back to their hotel and been no more than five minutes but instead he said he would transfer it.

    “Maybe he forgot. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt but if it’s not paid by Monday, I won’t be happy.”

    Remarkably, the Australia camp reacted angrily to the suggestion that Carey has not paid, saying that he had not even had a haircut in Leeds and that while another player had been to the barber’s, he had paid. They said they would return with the receipt later on Saturday to clear up any confusion.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/08/alex-carey-barber-alastair-cook-leeds-australia-headingley/

    Who the hell pays £30 for a man’s haircut?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023
    What's the source for Sunak's plan to fight dirty? Yes I know its in the Times, but where does it come from?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,092

    If Sunak reprises the Jimmy Savile stuff, Labour would be delighted as it would smack of utter desperation.

    If Sunak wants to attack Starmer personally, he'd be better finding something else. But I suspect there isn't much to find. Starmer's cupboard is, I think, pretty devoid of skeletons.

    We cannot know this, but then we cannot know what skeletons may lurk in Sunak's closet, so I doubt it's in anyone's interests to start fighting dirty.
    "A nice British wife not good enough for you, Mr Sunak?" :lol:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    If Sunak reprises the Jimmy Savile stuff, Labour would be delighted as it would smack of utter desperation.

    If Sunak wants to attack Starmer personally, he'd be better finding something else. But I suspect there isn't much to find. Starmer's cupboard is, I think, pretty devoid of skeletons.

    Apart from those of the donkeys carefully looked after for their last years.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    What's the source for Sunak's plan to fight dirty? Yes I know its in the Times, but where does it come from?

    I read it as a cabinet minister.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
    Who do you have confidence in to actually tackle any of them, for me the answer is none of the above. When things finally go bang which they will I don't see democracy surviving the explosion as I don't see anyone voting for a party espousing any of the necessary measures. So if they can't get elected and the country can't go on as it is where do we go from there?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Sandpit said:

    Have we done this?

    Combines two of PB's favourite topics, the cheating Aussies and a cashless society.

    A controversy-filled Ashes series took its most absurd turn yet when Cricket Australia vehemently denied suggestions that wicketkeeper-batsman Alex Carey walked out of a Leeds barber without paying a £30 bill.

    Sir Alastair Cook, the former England captain, claimed on BBC Test Match Special that, when having a pre-Test haircut, he had got chatting to his barber.

    “The barber says the Australians had been in,” Cook said. “He didn’t know his cricket very well, so he was telling me what they looked like.

    “He said Marnus [Labuschagne], the funny one. Then David Warner had a haircut, Usman [Khawaja] had a haircut and he says, ‘Oh there’s another one …’

    “He says, ‘One of them, I think Alex is his name’. I said, ‘Alex Carey, wicketkeeper?’

    “He says, ‘He hasn’t paid’. It was one of those cash-only barbers, and he promised him he would do a transfer later on in the day.

    “True story. He might have paid by now.”

    The barber, Adam Mahmood of Doc Barnet’s Barber Shop, explained his version of events to the Sun.

    “They all came in just before we shut,” he said. “We cut their hair and had a great laugh.

    “But we don’t accept cards and Alex said he had no cash on him.

    “Well, there’s a Tesco cash machine literally round the corner he could have run to. He could have nipped back to their hotel and been no more than five minutes but instead he said he would transfer it.

    “Maybe he forgot. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt but if it’s not paid by Monday, I won’t be happy.”

    Remarkably, the Australia camp reacted angrily to the suggestion that Carey has not paid, saying that he had not even had a haircut in Leeds and that while another player had been to the barber’s, he had paid. They said they would return with the receipt later on Saturday to clear up any confusion.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/08/alex-carey-barber-alastair-cook-leeds-australia-headingley/

    Who the hell pays £30 for a man’s haircut?
    One of Dave's (pbuh) jokes was that Boris Johnson pays £510 for his haircuts.

    £10 for haircut and £500 to hire a tractor to drag him backwards through some hedges for two hours.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,274
    Lest we forget (apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley and Jeremy Corbyn)

    My name is Leonadamus, PBer of PBers;
    Look on my Wallet, ye Lowly, and rejoice!
    Everything inside remains. From the bustle
    Of Camden Road boundless but for ULEZ
    The Wack happy traveler wanders on beyond
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366

    Sandpit said:

    Have we done this?

    Combines two of PB's favourite topics, the cheating Aussies and a cashless society.

    A controversy-filled Ashes series took its most absurd turn yet when Cricket Australia vehemently denied suggestions that wicketkeeper-batsman Alex Carey walked out of a Leeds barber without paying a £30 bill.

    Sir Alastair Cook, the former England captain, claimed on BBC Test Match Special that, when having a pre-Test haircut, he had got chatting to his barber.

    “The barber says the Australians had been in,” Cook said. “He didn’t know his cricket very well, so he was telling me what they looked like.

    “He said Marnus [Labuschagne], the funny one. Then David Warner had a haircut, Usman [Khawaja] had a haircut and he says, ‘Oh there’s another one …’

    “He says, ‘One of them, I think Alex is his name’. I said, ‘Alex Carey, wicketkeeper?’

    “He says, ‘He hasn’t paid’. It was one of those cash-only barbers, and he promised him he would do a transfer later on in the day.

    “True story. He might have paid by now.”

    The barber, Adam Mahmood of Doc Barnet’s Barber Shop, explained his version of events to the Sun.

    “They all came in just before we shut,” he said. “We cut their hair and had a great laugh.

    “But we don’t accept cards and Alex said he had no cash on him.

    “Well, there’s a Tesco cash machine literally round the corner he could have run to. He could have nipped back to their hotel and been no more than five minutes but instead he said he would transfer it.

    “Maybe he forgot. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt but if it’s not paid by Monday, I won’t be happy.”

    Remarkably, the Australia camp reacted angrily to the suggestion that Carey has not paid, saying that he had not even had a haircut in Leeds and that while another player had been to the barber’s, he had paid. They said they would return with the receipt later on Saturday to clear up any confusion.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/08/alex-carey-barber-alastair-cook-leeds-australia-headingley/

    Who the hell pays £30 for a man’s haircut?
    One of Dave's (pbuh) jokes was that Boris Johnson pays £510 for his haircuts.

    £10 for haircut and £500 to hire a tractor to drag him backwards through some hedges for two hours.
    Boris needing less and less of a haircut these days....
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    What's the source for Sunak's plan to fight dirty? Yes I know its in the Times, but where does it come from?

    I read it as a cabinet minister.
    There's a cabinet minister, a former cabinet minister and another senior source floating round in the article, but it isn't attributed to any of them.

    The most recommended (= liked) comment in the times is: 'Sunak when Johnson repeated the lie about Savile: “I wouldn’t have said it”

    Sunak now: “I’m saying it” '

    The other comments are not hopeful for the tories either.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    Lest we forget (apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley and Jeremy Corbyn)

    My name is Leonadamus, PBer of PBers;
    Look on my Wallet, ye Lowly, and rejoice!
    Everything inside remains. From the bustle
    Of Camden Road boundless but for ULEZ
    The Wack happy traveler wanders on beyond

    Can you let me know what you’re smoking sometime?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    edited July 2023
    stodge said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Government has collapsed in the Netherlands. Early election likely?

    The current governing parties won't want one because of the rise of the populist BBB. I suspect Rutte will cobble together another coalition soone ror later.
    Latest poll has the Farmers Party, the BBB, ahead on 27%, the governing VVD is down from 34% at the last election to 20% and the far right PVV tied with the Greens for third on 14% each.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Dutch_general_election
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162
    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    Lovely. It is horribly humid up there?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    Lovely. It is horribly humid up there?
    Humid by English standards but not by New England standards if you know what I mean. I’m in Boston at the moment though, lots of thunderstorms forecast for CT
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    Black British also are more likely to go to church now and be Christians percentage wise than white British of course
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,327
    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
    Who do you have confidence in to actually tackle any of them, for me the answer is none of the above. When things finally go bang which they will I don't see democracy surviving the explosion as I don't see anyone voting for a party espousing any of the necessary measures. So if they can't get elected and the country can't go on as it is where do we go from there?
    We have become incredibly entitled, not just as a nation but as a civilisation. We know far more about our rights than our obligations. It is not easy to see this ending well.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162
    edited July 2023
    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    Nevertheless, it’s interesting.
    A centre-right / liberal coalition is being brought down by immigration and net zero policy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,258
    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Yep. It's all about making sure he gets the chance to upset and disappoint (or not). Few ever get the chance and he won't be taking any risks unless the polls really turn.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    Lovely. It is horribly humid up there?
    Humid by English standards but not by New England standards if you know what I mean. I’m in Boston at the moment though, lots of thunderstorms forecast for CT
    I’ve never been to New Haven.
    I would like to visit the Museum of British Art.

    Yale now publishes the Pevsners and a lot of great epigraphs on British art and architecture.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    There is a serious issue that us leftish EUophiles in the U.K. may well to have to face in the next half decade. There’s a strong possibility that a number of major EU countries are going to tack right (in some cases quite sharply) just as we are heading back to the centre left. That’s going to require a big change in the current narrative we’ve been putting out. As was always the danger as I think I’ve pointed out on here before.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023
    Cavendish is down in a totally nothing crash, and looks like that is it. End of era.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    edited July 2023

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
    They certainly need to win back much of the 9% RefUK vote.

    At the moment Sunak and Hunt are refusing nurses and teachers even a below inflation pay rise, so that is the public sector vote gone to Labour (and to be fair many of the Cabinet from Barclay to Braverman to Chalk to Keegan think they are wrong on that).

    Sunak is also a Leaver and beyond the Windsor framework for NI is refusing to do anything to soften Boris' Brexit deal so that is the Remainer vote gone to Labour and the LDs.

    Sunak is also not doing much to stop the boats and reduce immigation, so that is seeing hardline redwall Brexiteers go RefUK or even back to Labour.

    Hunt is also refusing to even consider any pre election tax cuts, so that is the Thatcherite on economics vote either staying home or also going RefUK.

    Until inflation and interest rates really start to come down mortgage holders will mostly keep voting Labour having switched from the Tories after the Truss budget.

    So who is still voting Tory? Well mostly Leave voting home owning pensioners who aren't too bothered about immigration and fiscal conservatives working in the private sector who own or nearly own outright their properties and are on a high income and not too affected by cost of living.

    Not much scope for re electing lots of Tory MPs with just them however
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    Lovely. It is horribly humid up there?
    Humid by English standards but not by New England standards if you know what I mean. I’m in Boston at the moment though, lots of thunderstorms forecast for CT
    I’ve never been to New Haven.
    I would like to visit the Museum of British Art.

    Yale now publishes the Pevsners and a lot of great epigraphs on British art and architecture.
    Wouldn't mind seeing the Yale Peabody Museum to see the mastodon etc.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643

    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    Nevertheless, it’s interesting.
    A centre-right / liberal coalition is being brought down by immigration and net zero policy.

    The interesting thing is the BBB (the party leading the polls currently) arten't arguing for Holland to withdraw from the EU at all. They are arging for a return to a free trade bloc (EFTA if you like) with the customs union.

    Oddly enough, that might be the kind of economic and trading realtionship for which a majority of the British population could vote. It might be our way back but it requires the anti-EU populists to win power in enough countries to basically take the EU back to EFTA.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    Lovely. It is horribly humid up there?
    Humid by English standards but not by New England standards if you know what I mean. I’m in Boston at the moment though, lots of thunderstorms forecast for CT
    I’ve never been to New Haven.
    I would like to visit the Museum of British Art.

    Yale now publishes the Pevsners and a lot of great epigraphs on British art and architecture.
    I’ve been there quite a few times. I was married in the de facto Catholic Chapel at Yale, St Thomas Mores
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
    Who do you have confidence in to actually tackle any of them, for me the answer is none of the above. When things finally go bang which they will I don't see democracy surviving the explosion as I don't see anyone voting for a party espousing any of the necessary measures. So if they can't get elected and the country can't go on as it is where do we go from there?
    We have become incredibly entitled, not just as a nation but as a civilisation. We know far more about our rights than our obligations. It is not easy to see this ending well.
    I don't think it is just either if I am honest I think most western countries face similar problems and it is just some are further down the cul de sac than others. When it comes the readjustment is going to be painful
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    DougSeal said:

    I am about to experience Amtrak. I shall report and extrapolate all sorts of hot takes about the USA when I reach New Haven.

    As a nationalised train service in the land of unfettered capitalism Amtrak is a weirdly un-American experience. There is a bit if a 1970s BR ethos about the whole thing, which obviously appeals to me but probably isn't to everyone's taste.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    stodge said:

    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.

    Yet not one of his six successors has sought to reverse that change - instead of a cheap jibe against Blair, why not ask Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak why they haven't re-instated the two 15-minute sessions?
    Blair was popular enough to get away with his clear disrespect for Parliament.
    No successor has reversed it because it suits them.

    It’s hardly a cheap jibe against Blair, though.
    Recent Tory government, and Sunak is as bad as if not worse than his predecessors, routinely ignore Parliament. But it does retain some teeth, notably through its select committees, despite having one of the weaker Speakers of modern times.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    DougSeal said:

    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    There is a serious issue that us leftish EUophiles in the U.K. may well to have to face in the next half decade. There’s a strong possibility that a number of major EU countries are going to tack right (in some cases quite sharply) just as we are heading back to the centre left. That’s going to require a big change in the current narrative we’ve been putting out. As was always the danger as I think I’ve pointed out on here before.
    Again terms like "left" and "right" are thrown round like confetti. I'm far from convinced a lot of the anti-EU populists are "right" - indeed, read some of their policies and they are strong supporters of State intervention and polcies some might call socialist.

    They may hate the traditional centre-left and social democrat politics but that's not because they are fans of a "small state", far from it, their belief is the state can and should do more.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
    Who do you have confidence in to actually tackle any of them, for me the answer is none of the above. When things finally go bang which they will I don't see democracy surviving the explosion as I don't see anyone voting for a party espousing any of the necessary measures. So if they can't get elected and the country can't go on as it is where do we go from there?
    We have become incredibly entitled, not just as a nation but as a civilisation. We know far more about our rights than our obligations. It is not easy to see this ending well.
    I blame consumer capitalism.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,019

    With the GO email thing and now BBC presenter story, a load of people on twitter are giving lawyers their Christmas bonuses.....people never leaen.

    Having had a look, I see the settled view is that it's probably Basil Brush
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,437
    edited July 2023

    Cavendish is down in a totally nothing crash, and looks like that is it. End of era.

    Sad way to go out rather than in Paris, but a hazard of the game.

    I wonder if he might be tempted to have one more go? Though there's only so many times you can come back from injury.

    Such a shame he couldn't quite manage a win yesterday.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    edited July 2023
    @viewcode

    You asked me yesterday about 'reaction will survive - reaction always survives,' in 1906.

    I thought it might be Clynes who said it.

    Having checked, it was an unnamed Labour MP writing in Justice on the results.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    Transforming PMQs from two pithy 15-minute slots to a single 30-minute borefest was one of Blair's first innovations as soon as he got his arse on the No. 10 couch.

    Yet not one of his six successors has sought to reverse that change - instead of a cheap jibe against Blair, why not ask Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak why they haven't re-instated the two 15-minute sessions?
    Blair was popular enough to get away with his clear disrespect for Parliament.
    No successor has reversed it because it suits them.

    It’s hardly a cheap jibe against Blair, though.
    Recent Tory government, and Sunak is as bad as if not worse than his predecessors, routinely ignore Parliament. But it does retain some teeth, notably through its select committees, despite having one of the weaker Speakers of modern times.
    I'd go further and say Johnson and Sunak have introduced legislationn which has deliberately reduced Parliamanetary scrutiny and given far too much power to Ministers and Whitehall.

    Will Starmer reverse this? I suspect not for Labour are as much authoritarian centralisers as the Conservatives, two cheeks of the same, as @malcolmg would put it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,162
    edited July 2023
    stodge said:

    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    Nevertheless, it’s interesting.
    A centre-right / liberal coalition is being brought down by immigration and net zero policy.

    The interesting thing is the BBB (the party leading the polls currently) arten't arguing for Holland to withdraw from the EU at all. They are arging for a return to a free trade bloc (EFTA if you like) with the customs union.

    Oddly enough, that might be the kind of economic and trading realtionship for which a majority of the British population could vote. It might be our way back but it requires the anti-EU populists to win power in enough countries to basically take the EU back to EFTA.
    A confident Britain would be funding cross-border think-tanks that actively press for such.

    As it is, Euroscepticism at large, in almost all its forms, simply leaves the ideological space clear for coteries of hardcore federalists in Brussels.

    Perry Anderson is a rare exception in English.
    Remainers and Brexiters alike should read his Eurosceptic essay (15,000 words) freely available on the LRB website.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Cavendish is down in a totally nothing crash, and looks like that is it. End of era.

    Not saying that is a spoiler but please no spoilers, I watch the 7pm highlights
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023
    stodge said:

    DougSeal said:

    There’s a slight Brexity whiff to this sudden interest in Dutch politics.

    There is a serious issue that us leftish EUophiles in the U.K. may well to have to face in the next half decade. There’s a strong possibility that a number of major EU countries are going to tack right (in some cases quite sharply) just as we are heading back to the centre left. That’s going to require a big change in the current narrative we’ve been putting out. As was always the danger as I think I’ve pointed out on here before.
    Again terms like "left" and "right" are thrown round like confetti. I'm far from convinced a lot of the anti-EU populists are "right" - indeed, read some of their policies and they are strong supporters of State intervention and polcies some might call socialist.

    They may hate the traditional centre-left and social democrat politics but that's not because they are fans of a "small state", far from it, their belief is the state can and should do more.
    The new component is the feelings over globalisation. Brexit Right Wing types don't like it, they want more things should be made in own country (but not state owned) *. Old school left like Corbyn don't like globalisation, think the answer is state to own more. while there are soft left who are very comfortable with globalisation, but think the state need to be more involved to ensure people not left behind.

    * the reality is that you can't do that without being incredibly protectionist i.e anti-market.
  • HYUFD said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
    They certainly need to win back much of the 9% RefUK vote.

    At the moment Sunak and Hunt are refusing nurses and teachers even a below inflation pay rise, so that is the public sector vote gone to Labour (and to be fair many of the Cabinet from Barclay to Braverman to Chalk to Keegan think they are wrong on that).

    Sunak is also a Leaver and beyond the Windsor framework for NI is refusing to do anything to soften Boris' Brexit deal so that is the Remainer vote gone to Labour and the LDs.

    Sunak is also not doing much to stop the boats and reduce immigation, so that is seeing hardline redwall Brexiteers go RefUK or even back to Labour.

    Hunt is also refusing to even consider any pre election tax cuts, so that is the Thatcherite on economics vote either staying home or also going RefUK.

    Until inflation and interest rates really start to come down mortgage holders will mostly keep voting Labour having switched from the Tories after the Truss budget.

    So who is still voting Tory? Well mostly Leave voting home owning pensioners who aren't too bothered about immigration and fiscal conservatives working in the private sector who own or nearly own outright their properties and are on a high income and not too affected by cost of living.

    Not much scope for re electing lots of Tory MPs with just them however
    The Tories absolutely do not need to win the fruitcake, nut and loon vote.

    You summarise well why the Tories are struggling, but the solution to that is to smartly try to do well on some of those issues and come across as better than the Opposition.

    The Government seems to have given up. And if they give up and just rely on the racist vote, that will drive away more votes than it wins them.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,643
    HYUFD said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
    They certainly need to win back much of the 9% RefUK vote.

    At the moment Sunak and Hunt are refusing nurses and teachers even a below inflation pay rise, so that is the public sector vote gone to Labour (and to be fair many of the Cabinet from Barclay to Braverman to Chalk to Keegan think they are wrong on that).

    Sunak is also a Leaver and beyond the Windsor framework for NI is refusing to do anything to soften Boris' Brexit deal so that is the Remainer vote gone to Labour and the LDs.

    Sunak is also not doing much to stop the boats and reduce immigation, so that is seeing hardline redwall Brexiteers go RefUK or even back to Labour.

    Hunt is also refusing to even consider any pre election tax cuts, so that is the Thatcherite on economics vote either staying home or also going RefUK.

    Until inflation and interest rates really start to come down mortgage holders will mostly keep voting Labour having switched from the Tories after the Truss budget.

    So who is still voting Tory? Well mostly Leave voting home owning pensioners who aren't too bothered about immigration and fiscal conservatives working in the private sector who own or nearly own outright their properties and are on a high income and not too affected by cost of living.

    Not much scope for re electing lots of Tory MPs with just them however
    A refreshingly candid and honest analysis of your Party's prospects which does you personally great credit and for which many thanks.

    There were those in 1996 who wanted Clarke to cut taxes before the election - he refused and did so in order to provide for the long term health of the economy even though that inheritance was passed to a Labour Chancellor who, in all fairness, kept to Clarke's spending plans for the first two years.

    While the short term may look bleak, the longer term does give cause for optimism. Conservatism and the Conservative Party has proved spectacularly adept at re-invention in opposition - it may take a while but it does happen. Trying to formulate a vision of a Conservative Britain in the mid-2030s requires a lot of thought but it has to start somewhere - I'd offer the thought ecological conservatism is a thing - preservation (conservation if you like) should be a vital part of Conservative thinking yet combining nature and technology and taking the best from both to provide sustainable economies which can both enrich humanity and the planet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003

    HYUFD said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    HYUFD has made repeated arguments lately that the Tories should go for the REFUK 9% share of the vote.

    Perhaps they'll get it?
    They certainly need to win back much of the 9% RefUK vote.

    At the moment Sunak and Hunt are refusing nurses and teachers even a below inflation pay rise, so that is the public sector vote gone to Labour (and to be fair many of the Cabinet from Barclay to Braverman to Chalk to Keegan think they are wrong on that).

    Sunak is also a Leaver and beyond the Windsor framework for NI is refusing to do anything to soften Boris' Brexit deal so that is the Remainer vote gone to Labour and the LDs.

    Sunak is also not doing much to stop the boats and reduce immigation, so that is seeing hardline redwall Brexiteers go RefUK or even back to Labour.

    Hunt is also refusing to even consider any pre election tax cuts, so that is the Thatcherite on economics vote either staying home or also going RefUK.

    Until inflation and interest rates really start to come down mortgage holders will mostly keep voting Labour having switched from the Tories after the Truss budget.

    So who is still voting Tory? Well mostly Leave voting home owning pensioners who aren't too bothered about immigration and fiscal conservatives working in the private sector who own or nearly own outright their properties and are on a high income and not too affected by cost of living.

    Not much scope for re electing lots of Tory MPs with just them however
    The Tories absolutely do not need to win the fruitcake, nut and loon vote.

    You summarise well why the Tories are struggling, but the solution to that is to smartly try to do well on some of those issues and come across as better than the Opposition.

    The Government seems to have given up. And if they give up and just rely on the racist vote, that will drive away more votes than it wins them.
    The Tories are more likely to win back the 9% voting RefUK than the Remainers voting LD or the redwall voters who only lent them their votes to get Brexit done and now it has done have gone back to Labour.

    Mortgage holders won't come back either until interest rates and inflation are well down from current levels whatever the Tories cultural position
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,527
    CatMan said:

    With the GO email thing and now BBC presenter story, a load of people on twitter are giving lawyers their Christmas bonuses.....people never leaen.

    Having had a look, I see the settled view is that it's probably Basil Brush
    Not Gordon the Gopher? He’s kept some suspect company in the past.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 2023

    Cavendish is down in a totally nothing crash, and looks like that is it. End of era.

    Sad way to go out rather than in Paris, but a hazard of the game.

    I wonder if he might be tempted to have one more go? Though there's only so many times you can come back from injury.

    Such a shame he couldn't quite manage a win yesterday.
    I don't think he can do it. He is already much declined force in sprinting, just hoping for that one stage where he sneaks it (rather than at his prime, it was basically he would win as long as the lead out wasn't messed up). And obviously you have to drag your arse 1000 kms just to get that one opportunity.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    There is a good rule of thumb in life which is "ignore everything before the but".

    Anyone who says "I'm not racist but *racist thing here*" has demonstrated that they quite clearly are racist.
    What you are saying here is correct but it's correct
    There is a huge difference between not wanting a neighbour of a different colour and objecting to immigration changing the face of the country for example to switching from majority christian to majority muslim. Your view seems to be that people should get no say on the latter.

    The first is racist, the second in my view is not
    You know, it's almost a daily occurrence that you tell me what my "view" seems to be, and you are consistently wrong.

    My own view on religion is that everybody should give it up because it's silly. But I'm not going to vote for a party that discriminates between potential migrants on the basis of their religion. I don't see the role of government as being one that engineers the country to be more like me in a racial or religious way.

    Other people are at completely liberty to vote to "keep" the UK "white", and I'm at liberty to suggest that such a racially motivated action is, well, racially motivated.

    Just to go back to the first point, you're continued misinterpretation of what I'm saying. Can I gently suggest you take the time to read my posts for their content and not to harvest the obviously fertile meadows of your imagination for what I think. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so routinely wrong.
    See you say I am misinterpreting you then say exactly what I claimed you said. The government and people of a country should get no say on who comes in

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    Who is “we” here?
    It is maintaining the uk as a secular liberal state. That is the culture most want protected.
    Listen you thick twat. If you vote BNP and I call you racist. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the vote. It just means I think you're racist. Clear? Now fuck off.
    Your argument is so shit you have to resort to offence. The people of a country have every right to vote against letting in those that would change their culture. You would be the first to complain if homosexuality got made illegal once again. Voting not to take immigrants that think like that whether they are white/brown/green with yellow spots is not racist, So take your own advice and fuck off. Your view that we shouldn't be allowed to protect a secular liberal state is so far from mainstream it is untrue.
  • Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DougSeal said:

    From the Times,


    Looks like Sunak is interested in breaching the 20% floor.

    Why telegraph (no pun intended) this stuff in advance giving SKS time to prepare? I think Starmer’s massively underrated as a politician, especially on here, inexplicably so. From DavidL to BJO the consensus is he’s boring and crap, but yet…
    He is boring but it doesn't matter as much as many think it should. We are at the end of 13 years of Tory rule, much of which has been chaotic and difficult. It is time for a change and SKS is not scary like Corbyn. He doesn't need to do anything to win and he knows it. In fact doing things is dangerous because it upsets and disappoints people. Plenty of time to do that when in Number 10. Meantime he is smart enough to just watch the clock tick down.
    Besides, Make Britain Boring Again is probably an attractive vision for the next government.

    We don't want to go on a bear hunt any more.
    Boring is not going to be an option. We have a series of tough and long avoided choices ahead of us. We live in interesting times.
    Who do you have confidence in to actually tackle any of them, for me the answer is none of the above. When things finally go bang which they will I don't see democracy surviving the explosion as I don't see anyone voting for a party espousing any of the necessary measures. So if they can't get elected and the country can't go on as it is where do we go from there?
    Democracy is the worst system of government.

    Apart from all the others that have ever been tried.

    When things go boom, the country has a way of muddling through. Middling through isn't the best option, and it'd be better to see an aspirational government elected with a vision to improve things, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

    But as disappointing as merely muddling through is, it's categorically better than any non democratic alternatives.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,135

    Miklosvar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    "This country isn't racist"
    vs
    "I'm desperately afraid of being outnumbered by Black people"

    These two views can, apparently, coexist in one mind.

    If an Afghan said “I’m not racist but I’d rather my country didn’t become majority white and Christian, unless the Afghan people approve of it in a vote” you wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy. Yet for white British people it is unacceptable to say this?

    Lefties are ridiculous twats, part 297
    I wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy, I'd accuse them of having a racially discriminatory attitude to whom they want as having their neighbours.

    I mean, even the word "accuse" is a bit unnecessary because it's exactly what "they" would be saying.

    I really don't understand what would motivate someone to be so concerned about ensuring the majority of people around them have the same colour skin. Still, I guess it's probably not because they're racist, it must be for some other reasons 🤷
    Changes in demography often (not always) mean changes in the balance of political and/or religious power.

    A devoutly Muslim Afghan would have every reason to fear that an influx of white people would mean that Afghanistan would cease to be a devoutly Muslim country.

    In other parts of the world, growth in the size of a minority group may lead the current majority group to fear that they will cease to be the dominant political group.

    You may not agree with that outlook, but there is nothing irrational about it.
    True but with christianity on the decline we aren't clear what values or culture we are trying to protect. The conclusion at that point is that t must be about race.
    On the contrary, I think we are trying to protect a sort of enlightenment consensus position which owes remarkably little to Christianity and is firmly anti-Christian if and to the extent that Christianity is anti-gay, and is firmly anti-muslim if and to the extent that Islam is anti-prophet pics
    To make the same point slightly differently, we are trying to protect the illusion that religion and culture can be just private matters.
    Religion can and should be private in the sense of not part of the state. People shouldn't need to pray privately of course.

    Culture is almost by definition societal so I don't even understand what it means to suggest it is a private.

    Personally I wouldn't want to live in any society that has a big majority of any fundamentalist branch of a religion whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan or even Jedi. That is not being racist as I don't care what colour people are or background they have, but a reflection that a pluralist society is better.

    Religion and race are being conflated in this discussion when they are quite separate, if demographically linked.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    Mercedes on slicks, Ferrari on inters.

    Take a guess which is the right tyre for the conditions?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    DougSeal said:

    Lest we forget (apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley and Jeremy Corbyn)

    My name is Leonadamus, PBer of PBers;
    Look on my Wallet, ye Lowly, and rejoice!
    Everything inside remains. From the bustle
    Of Camden Road boundless but for ULEZ
    The Wack happy traveler wanders on beyond

    Can you let me know what you’re smoking sometime?
    That was Coleridge.
This discussion has been closed.