There is a huge double standard from politicians / media who basically bang on day after day about how crap the police, particularly the MET are, racist, sexist, misogynists, etc, then the Home Secretary says something and now its all pearl clutching of how can anybody say our police are biased, they do excellent work in difficult circumstances...
When the police have been taking advise from race grifters and antisemites, who tell them nonsense like screaming about Jihadi was really a discussion of personal struggle, flags used by various Islamists groups are really just the printing of a call to prayer on a flag, etc
The thing about Braverman, I think she is a rubbish politician in the sense of if your goal is to win power (not actually effect positive change). There are ways of messaging, or getting outriders to message that you think they things, without running into this issue. Then we get several days about ohhh bad / inappropriate words were said, etc etc etc and distracts from the actual issue at hand.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Well I think we saw that yesterday when he called to plod to #10....
I'd lay Braverman, as the hyped candidate, but I do fear they're crazy enough to do it. Might be value in backing her as a trading bet. Depending on the composition of the Tory rump after the next GE, there might be a concerted effort to block her at the MP level. Or maybe not - has anyone done an analysis on who is likely to be left in the CPP under X seats outcomes?
I would like to make it crystal clear to the 41% of Tory voters who think living in a tent is a lifestyle choice - we're talking about the homeless, not Duke of Edinburgh Award participants.
I would like to make it crystal clear to the 41% of Tory voters who think living in a tent is a lifestyle choice - we're talking about the homeless, not Duke of Edinburgh Award participants.
I was thinking more about the people who go glamping or think the definition of wild camping is going to "Glasto" for the weekend....
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
I think I might have been the only person on here defending the police that night, but yes, this shows the rank hypocrisy of politicians.
There is a difference, surely, between an opposition MP (even the shadow HS) criticising the policing of a protest post-hoc & the Home Secretary practically ordering the police to cancel a protest before it even happens.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
I’m not entirely sure I get Braverman’s motives here. If it was a simple case of wanting to leave government, could she simply not have resigned with an attack on Sunak? It feels more to me like she hopes he’ll have to keep her on, and that will solidify her message and power base in advance of the next leadership contest. I don’t know. Something about the whole thing feels odd.
I am becoming more convinced by the day that she is going to be the next leader, though.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Letters/articles in The Times are part of the UK constitution.
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
Its worse, 2 days he was giving it the big'un that these protests should not go ahead this weekend, calls in the MET chief for a robust exchange of ideas, then goes oh well, the police told me nought can be done, I am only PM, I don't have any real say in anything....
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Braverman also has a +43.5% rating in the latest ConservativeHome survey of Tory members compared to just +7.1% for Sunak
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The point is that she's Home Secretary. If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that. The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
No, you’re both wrong
The Mail has a really good science and tech section - better than any other British newspaper (partly because they can afford it, as they are rich). Good editors, good journalists
They very often break science/tech stories before anyone else - including the USA - and they cover them with greater expertise and insight
It generally isn’t influenced in either way by the paper’s political stance
It’s also worth noting the growing influence of Daily Mail USA. They often get American stories before American media
If NZ lose no wickets then the 20 over target score for them is 45. But they could get there, have rain come and be no resulted because they haven't batted 20 overs even if they hit the DLS score !
I assume if this happens the powers that be should look at amending the 20 over rule.
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
Not entirely unprecedented as you could argue Brown's role under Blair was similar to Braverman's, certainly in Blair's latter years. But Brown had a little more depth of intellect than this one.
I’m not entirely sure I get Braverman’s motives here. If it was a simple case of wanting to leave government, could she simply not have resigned with an attack on Sunak? It feels more to me like she hopes he’ll have to keep her on, and that will solidify her message and power base in advance of the next leadership contest. I don’t know. Something about the whole thing feels odd.
I am becoming more convinced by the day that she is going to be the next leader, though.
Much worse than that. She’s now got the PM in the position where he can’t sack her, and can’t not sack her, without losing a whole load of support.
As I’ve said many times before, Liz Truss would have been better. At least she had ideas, policies, and legislation she’d have brought forward in this session.
Sunak is worse than Brown, the PM who burned all the bridges to get the top job, but knew not what to do with it.
I think Suella's going to go. Rishi is putting a massive distance between himself and her proclamation that the British policing is institutionally biased with an agenda to persecute the Tory Party's friends.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The PM doesn't need a constitutional reason to sack the Home secretary. He can sack anyone he likes.
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
If Sunak is as weak as you say then Braverman surely has to topple him in an attempt to become PM herself. Otherwise she would have bottled it.
If NZ lose no wickets then the 20 over target score for them is 45. But they could get there, have rain come and be no resulted because they haven't batted 20 overs even if they hit the DLS score !
I assume if this happens the powers that be should look at amending the 20 over rule.
That’s a travesty if it happens, when they got the 45 runs inside seven overs, and without loss.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
No, you’re both wrong
The Mail has a really good science and tech section - better than any other British newspaper (partly because they can afford it, as they are rich). Good editors, good journalists
They very often break science/tech stories before anyone else - including the USA - and they cover them with greater expertise and insight
It generally isn’t influenced in either way by the paper’s political stance
It’s also worth noting the growing influence of Daily Mail USA. They often get American stories before American media
The dawn of online news has really transformed both the Daily Mail and the Guardian. The Guardian is now one of the most read online news sources globally with a huge US readership among Democrat types. Its reputation internationally actually seems to be much more partisan than the Mail's. The DM seems to be good at choosing when and when not to go full on partisan, rather like Murdoch. I assume it feels there's already plenty of right wing media content for Americans to feast on so it's best served by the more neutral approach specialising in fancy-that type stories.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The point is that she's Home Secretary. If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that. The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
Politicians do this stuff all the time. It’s only generating panty-wetting because it’s Braverman
She’s probably loving it
I agree with those that say her aim is likely to get herself sacked at some point by Sunak. So she is detached from the electoral disaster of 2024. Then she can blame Sunak and Co for being too Woke
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Braverman also has a +43.5% rating in the latest ConservativeHome survey of Tory members compared to just +7.1% for Sunak
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The British constitution doesn't permit forbid (yikes!) politicians from having diverse opinions, but it does permit a Prime Minister to fire a Minister for any reason they see fit. That's what "invited me to form a Government" means. Apocryphally Clem Attlee fired a Minister with the phrase "not up to it".
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The British constitution doesn't permit forbid (yikes!) politicians from having diverse opinions, but it does permit a Prime Minister to fire a Minister for any reason they see fit. That's what "invited me to form a Government" means. Apocryphally Clem Attlee fired a Minister with the phrase "not up to it".
Sunak wouldn't have much of a Cabinet left if he followed Atlee's approach.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
Yeah but 28% is for 'some' only 6% think it is for 'most' (goodness knows what those 6% are on).
How do you define some? I mean it actually might be true for 1% of those who sleep rough. If those 28% think 'some' is a small minority then they should be lumped in with the 57% not the 6%. So the result is then:
85 : 6
Not
57 : 34
Presumably the answer is somewhere in between. Rubbish question of course.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
She wrote something, passed it through the PM, and then ignored the edits that the PM asked for - and there has been a political impact of what was written which, potentially, the PM did not want. The PM can fire any minister they want for any reason they wish - deliberately ignoring "the line" on something like this would typically lead to being sacked.
If it rains now, is this the day that Duckworth and Lewis finally screw up?
No. DLS is fine, the 20 over rule looks preposterous though as NZ are already ahead of that total (And will be barring a flurry of wickets)
Here are the total for 0 through 9 wickets at 20 overs DLS par
45 50 58 68 82 98 118 139 156 169
I think in this situation the game should either be no result or bowling team wins. You could argue that's a bit unfair on the team that batted first but if the bowling side is ahead of the DLS par for 20 overs at say 10 overs then a No result is more than the team that batted first could realistically expect.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
No, you’re both wrong
The Mail has a really good science and tech section - better than any other British newspaper (partly because they can afford it, as they are rich). Good editors, good journalists
They very often break science/tech stories before anyone else - including the USA - and they cover them with greater expertise and insight
It generally isn’t influenced in either way by the paper’s political stance
It’s also worth noting the growing influence of Daily Mail USA. They often get American stories before American media
The dawn of online news has really transformed both the Daily Mail and the Guardian. The Guardian is now one of the most read online news sources globally with a huge US readership among Democrat types. Its reputation internationally actually seems to be much more partisan than the Mail's. The DM seems to be good at choosing when and when not to go full on partisan, rather like Murdoch. I assume it feels there's already plenty of right wing media content for Americans to feast on so it's best served by the more neutral approach specialising in fancy-that type stories.
The Daily Mail generates considerably more money than the Guardian
The Daily Mail Group makes about £1bn a year in revenue; the Guardian about £220m
The Guardian also makes a loss, the Mail a profit
Part of the problem for the Guardian is the the New York Times (which is hugely rich) has almost identical views and uses the same angles
The Daily Mail has found a niche not really exploited in the USA
If it rains now, is this the day that Duckworth and Lewis finally screw up?
Technically I don't think that it's DLS that has screwed up - it's the ICC (or whoever it is running the tournament) that mandates a minimum of 20 Overs for each side for a match.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
No, you’re both wrong
The Mail has a really good science and tech section - better than any other British newspaper (partly because they can afford it, as they are rich). Good editors, good journalists
They very often break science/tech stories before anyone else - including the USA - and they cover them with greater expertise and insight
It generally isn’t influenced in either way by the paper’s political stance
It’s also worth noting the growing influence of Daily Mail USA. They often get American stories before American media
During COVID someone I knew was suddenly made “COVID reporter” for her news outlet.
She kept off asking me about stories - no science background but was trying to honestly understand.
The main problem was Big Reporters jumping in and editors rewriting stories seemingly at random.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The point is that she's Home Secretary. If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that. The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
Politicians do this stuff all the time. It’s only generating panty-wetting because it’s Braverman
She’s probably loving it
I agree with those that say her aim is likely to get herself sacked at some point by Sunak. So she is detached from the electoral disaster of 2024. Then she can blame Sunak and Co for being too Woke
So you agree she isn't interested in fulfilling her duties in one of the highest offices in the land but is a blatant careerist. I can't read the article because it is behind the great paywall of Rupert but I'm surprised that her critics are not really rejecting the content of the piece. More that the piece will inflame tensions. So whilst she may be saying some things that are true and whilst she's not exactly Trump, she's likely to make things worse rather than better. Badenoch is similarly anti woke without the need to create endless headlines.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
If it rains now, is this the day that Duckworth and Lewis finally screw up?
Technically I don't think that it's DLS that has screwed up - it's the ICC (or whoever it is running the tournament) that mandates a minimum of 20 Overs for each side for a match.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Maybe. Trump has more charisma though, and a decent sense of humour despite being a despicable human being. She seems so far to be completely humourless and with zero self-awareness.
Put Farage and Braverman up against each other in a leadership competition and he would win the drink down the pub vote hands down. And assuming the party goes full UKIP post election and he remains outside, he will be there reminding people there's always the real thing.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
I mean, having not seen any of Labour's attack lines - I wonder if this is something Labour doesn't need to create and is just an ajar door they need to push open.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
Not sure that “lifestyle” really catches a toxic intersection of mental health issues, drink and drugs.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
I mean, having not seen any of Labour's attack lines - I wonder if this is something Labour doesn't need to create and is just an ajar door they need to push open.
It is a line they have been pushing for the last 12 months. It is not especially effective. However Labour does not need to attack or undermine Sunak. His own poor performance does that.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
Not sure that “lifestyle” really catches a toxic intersection of mental health issues, drink and drugs.
Bonus points for the first person to say “houseless”, which is the latest American woke word that suggests that the homeless are all simply victims of the system, rather than people with their own agency.
A PM as politically weak as Sunak has now shown himself to be is surely unprecedented. Even Liz Truss sacked Braverman. From a Labour perspective, it's absolutely fantastic. But from a national perspective, how is this sustainable?
Its worse, 2 days he was giving it the big'un that these protests should not go ahead this weekend, calls in the MET chief for a robust exchange of ideas, then goes oh well, the police told me nought can be done, I am only PM, I don't have any real say in anything....
Someone should point the finger of blame at the true guilty party - Sir Keir Starmer
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
Watching the Covid inquiry yesterday, I thought most of it was irrelevant. Once it was clear the pandemic would be invading our shores, the main problem was how to prevent serious harm to the population - especially the old gits and the immunocompromised.
They did consider two options. Herd immunity - it would eventually work but with serious costs to the old gits and the very sick. Or a vaccine. One of the few things that Bojo got right - appoint a person familiar with the pharmaceutical industry and the civil service to bang their heads together - who happened to be female.
Sedwill's great idea was to rearrange the civil service to be more civil-servicy. No doubt so that he could sit back and preen over an increased head-count. Remember the First Division motto. Scientists - On tap, not on top,
The lady has 'foot in mouth' disease. But the homeless nonsense is the least of the issues with her.
No 10 has now diisavowed Suella's attempts to whip up a riot in London via the Times. Suella said that the article had got the green light from No 10. So either they are fibbing or she is. Or, most likely, she didn't understand the question she was asked
This really isn't about a pathetically over promoted and 'intellectually challenged' Home Secretary any more. It is all about Mr Sunak. Is he so out of touch and/or so weak that he can't do what is so obviously necessary?
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
The Tory Party's problem is that it is losing votes simultaneously to the left and the right. Swella is therefore only half a solution which makes the other half of the problem worse.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
There certainly are some homeless people who resist being housed. There was a guy semi-regularly rough sleeping on our church porch for a while. The curate at the time got him about 3 different opportunities to be housed in hostel accommodation and put on a waiting list for a flat, but he somehow seemed to always end up back sleeping outside within a couple of days. I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Braverman also has a +43.5% rating in the latest ConservativeHome survey of Tory members compared to just +7.1% for Sunak
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The point is that she's Home Secretary. If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that. The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
Politicians do this stuff all the time. It’s only generating panty-wetting because it’s Braverman
She’s probably loving it
I agree with those that say her aim is likely to get herself sacked at some point by Sunak. So she is detached from the electoral disaster of 2024. Then she can blame Sunak and Co for being too Woke
It’s reminding me of Enoch Powell & Edward Heath; Braverman is saying stuff that no other senior politician says, but lots of non political people in working class areas are.
Opinion polls at the time overwhelmingly backed Powell, and the Tories surprisingly won the next election, despite his sacking
In one sense it could be a good tactic as it’s creating a wedge issue between the Tories and the twitterati/Centrist Dad .Labour
I might lay Lab at 1.36 for overall majority now. Or a little bet on Con Maj at 12 - provable losers but dividing people up on issues like this is - them anti protest/Labour outraged at them for being anti the protests/lefties attending the protests is their only chance
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
The thing is the political ratchet only really goes one way - the "new normal" was once far right; Nigel Farage isn't just playing nice when he says that the Tories now are a party he could be in. I doubt this Conservative government, for example, would push for equal marriage like the Cameron government did - that would be "woke" in a world where it didn't already exist. May's line on banning conversion therapy and GR reform is defo far too "woke" - and that's the "GO HOME" vans Minister. Like, I think of some extremely right wing ex Tories who were Remain, or just are no longer right wing enough (like Sayeeda Warsi, or Michael Heseltine, or hell May or even Osborne) who would no longer be welcome - even though austerity was an extreme right wing departure from the economic norm and they were all involved in governments who stoked xenophobia and culture war issues (just not all of them).
Braverman is a continuation of that - she's just doing it in the style of the the US MAGA GOP instead of in the typical UK manner.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
Not sure that “lifestyle” really catches a toxic intersection of mental health issues, drink and drugs.
Bonus points for the first person to say “houseless”, which is the latest American woke word that suggests that the homeless are all simply victims of the system, rather than people with their own agency.
I don’t think I’ve encountered a noticeable number of deliberately, lifestyle homeless.
There was one chap in Wiltshire who lived in tents/temp accommodation from choice. Used to odd job his way round Europe in winter and send postcards to the pub from everywhere.
The other 99.999% consist of the two homelessness problems.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
It's one of those classics – I cite them frequently.
I'm fond of "just rejoice at that news" too – Maggie Thatcher.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
There certainly are some homeless people who resist being housed. There was a guy semi-regularly rough sleeping on our church porch for a while. The curate at the time got him about 3 different opportunities to be housed in hostel accommodation and put on a waiting list for a flat, but he somehow seemed to always end up back sleeping outside within a couple of days. I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
There are two problems, which get confused. Sometimes deliberately.
1) people like the chap you mention. Their problems are so severe that inhabiting a property doesn’t work for them. Their homelessness is a symptom of their condition, not a cause.
2) a much larger group of people living in horrible conditions, but with a roof. Of sorts. Waiting for decent, permanent accommodation.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Braverman also has a +43.5% rating in the latest ConservativeHome survey of Tory members compared to just +7.1% for Sunak
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
I wasn’t aware the British constitution forbade politicians from having diverse opinions
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
The point is that she's Home Secretary. If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that. The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
Politicians do this stuff all the time. It’s only generating panty-wetting because it’s Braverman
She’s probably loving it
I agree with those that say her aim is likely to get herself sacked at some point by Sunak. So she is detached from the electoral disaster of 2024. Then she can blame Sunak and Co for being too Woke
It’s reminding me of Enoch Powell & Edward Heath; Braverman is saying stuff that no other senior politician says, but lots of non political people in working class areas are.
Opinion polls at the time overwhelmingly backed Powell, and the Tories surprisingly won the next election, despite his sacking
In one sense it could be a good tactic as it’s creating a wedge issue between the Tories and the twitterati/Centrist Dad .Labour
I might lay Lab at 1.36 for overall majority now. Or a little bet on Con Maj at 12 - provable losers but dividing people up on issues like this is - them anti protest/Labour outraged at them for being anti the protests/lefties attending the protests is their only chance
I speculated yesterday on what might drive Gaza out of the news. Well it seems to have faded rather more quickly than expected. The major global titles are carrying far less of it today, and social media also seems to be losing interest, if anything moving back towards more focus on Ukraine. Whilst you could argue the Braverman thing is ultimately about Israel-Palestine, it's not really. It's domestic politics.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
She's doing the MAGA thing of campaigning as if she is opposition when she is in office.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
It's one of those classics – I cite them frequently.
I'm fond of "just rejoice at that news" too – Maggie Thatcher.
I'm waiting for a repeat of "a new dawn has broken, has it not".
"Present but not involved" was another good one, the British 21st C answer to Clinton not inhaling.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Why just people who have kids? Are you saying that the rest of the world will shrug it off as mere bagatelle?
I think he means the visceral way that some stories that directly speak to our own experience, reach deeper.
It’s not that humans are uncaring, but things that we can link directly to ourselves hurt more…
“ was not the ignorant suffering of an animal. She knew well enough what was happening to her--understood as well as I did how dreadful a destiny it was to be kneeling there in the bitter cold, on the slimy stones of a slum backyard, poking a stick up a foul drain-pipe.”
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
There certainly are some homeless people who resist being housed. There was a guy semi-regularly rough sleeping on our church porch for a while. The curate at the time got him about 3 different opportunities to be housed in hostel accommodation and put on a waiting list for a flat, but he somehow seemed to always end up back sleeping outside within a couple of days. I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
I thought the main reason this happened was that hostel accommodation doesn't tolerate drug use.
So if you've got a habit, you have to stay on the street.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
I think the thing that makes her "stupid", although I don't think I would use that word, is her unsubtlety and use of US examples. I don't know if she is just too online, or her staffers are too online, but she needs to bring it home - not talk about San Francisco and such. If she really wants to be the new leader by pushing the Tories further right she should instead be talking along the lines of Melanie Phillips' "Londonistan" or going for uni towns like Bristol or Sheffield. But all her examples are just detached from the UK and are too brute force.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
There certainly are some homeless people who resist being housed. There was a guy semi-regularly rough sleeping on our church porch for a while. The curate at the time got him about 3 different opportunities to be housed in hostel accommodation and put on a waiting list for a flat, but he somehow seemed to always end up back sleeping outside within a couple of days. I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
I thought the main reason this happened was that hostel accommodation doesn't tolerate drug use.
So if you've got a habit, you have to stay on the street.
That's what I have been told happens locally.
[I'm not saying that was the issue here]
There are other issues - fighting with other, falling asleep while smoke and setting the place on fire….
If it was only as simple as getting them inside, it would have been done many years ago. And yet it goes on in, in all countries.
Entirely off-topic. I follow other YouTubers, and have started commenting on some of their videos. Have attracted in an absolute avalanche of new subscribers, a huge number of watches and watch hours and endless anti-EV comments.
Its great! The algorithm rewards you for attracting loads of new viewers and subscribers, rewards people commenting on your video and rewards you for replying. To say nothing about ad revenue earned!
Thanks GB News viewers! This will have been a very profitable experiment...
Many of those in tents are people who are mentally fragile. Taking their tents away would probably drive several to suicide. Perhaps that is what the ghastly Braverman wants.
Many of those in tents are people who are mentally fragile. Taking their tents away would probably drive several to suicide. Perhaps that is what the ghastly Braverman wants.
She'd have to weigh the likely effect on her political career before deciding that.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Would "unwise" be a better fit?
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
She's probably not stupid in the same way that Enoch Powell wasn't stupid. Whether she reaps any benefits from her non-stupidity remains to be seen. She might well end up like him - a drifting, melancholic figure whose only consolation was the many letters he once received written in green ink.
Many of those in tents are people who are mentally fragile. Taking their tents away would probably drive several to suicide. Perhaps that is what the ghastly Braverman wants.
Not only that, but making this happen as we head into winter could lead to many freezing.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Maybe. Trump has more charisma though, and a decent sense of humour despite being a despicable human being. She seems so far to be completely humourless and with zero self-awareness.
Put Farage and Braverman up against each other in a leadership competition and he would win the drink down the pub vote hands down. And assuming the party goes full UKIP post election and he remains outside, he will be there reminding people there's always the real thing.
This is true, but if say she is facing someone like Starmer at a GE (for all he is decent and appears honorable) she doesn’t need to be winning any charisma awards.
If the reports are true that she sent copy to No 10 and they made edits she didn't use - surely he has to sack her? Otherwise he would be admitting he is, when it comes to many policies, PM in name only.
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Lovely to see Labour's attack lines being repeated here.
It's one of those classics – I cite them frequently.
I guess one persons classic is another persons "The Adventures of Pluto Nash"
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
She's probably not stupid in the same way that Enoch Powell wasn't stupid. Whether she reaps any benefits from her non-stupidity remains to be seen. She might well end up like him - a drifting, melancholic figure whose only consolation was the many letters he once received written in green ink.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Maybe. Trump has more charisma though, and a decent sense of humour despite being a despicable human being. She seems so far to be completely humourless and with zero self-awareness.
Put Farage and Braverman up against each other in a leadership competition and he would win the drink down the pub vote hands down. And assuming the party goes full UKIP post election and he remains outside, he will be there reminding people there's always the real thing.
This is true, but if say she is facing someone like Starmer at a GE (for all he is decent and appears honorable) she doesn’t need to be winning any charisma awards.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
There certainly are some homeless people who resist being housed. There was a guy semi-regularly rough sleeping on our church porch for a while. The curate at the time got him about 3 different opportunities to be housed in hostel accommodation and put on a waiting list for a flat, but he somehow seemed to always end up back sleeping outside within a couple of days. I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
I thought the main reason this happened was that hostel accommodation doesn't tolerate drug use.
So if you've got a habit, you have to stay on the street.
That's what I have been told happens locally.
[I'm not saying that was the issue here]
This is what happens around my way. Ironically, drinking is one of the easiest to spot, because a) a four pack of special brew is somewhat more obvious compared to a slim gram of white powder, plus you drink it slowly over time, rather than shoot it all up quickly. Fewer telltale signs such as breath, empties etc.
Net result is that it's easier to hide a drug habit in sheltered accommodation than alcoholism.
How many PB'ers would last more than a day in a house that wouldn't let them drink?
I speculated yesterday on what might drive Gaza out of the news. Well it seems to have faded rather more quickly than expected. The major global titles are carrying far less of it today, and social media also seems to be losing interest, if anything moving back towards more focus on Ukraine. Whilst you could argue the Braverman thing is ultimately about Israel-Palestine, it's not really. It's domestic politics.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
We will know for sure when Barty changes his profile pic back to England + Ukraine flags, rather than England + Israel as he has now.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Would "unwise" be a better fit?
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
Unwise is right but, as you say, given she is not stupid then I do not know if she is malevolent as such but her policy outlook certainly is.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
She's probably not stupid in the same way that Enoch Powell wasn't stupid. Whether she reaps any benefits from her non-stupidity remains to be seen. She might well end up like him - a drifting, melancholic figure whose only consolation was the many letters he once received written in green ink.
We can but hope. I would thing labour will be desperately hoping she takes the leadership reins when Sunak gets hammered at the next election. It will be bad news for centre right politics in the UK but great for a second SKS term.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
If you think a Cambridge degree is proof that someone isn't stupid, that makes me pretty sure you didn't go to Cambridge.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
I speculated yesterday on what might drive Gaza out of the news. Well it seems to have faded rather more quickly than expected. The major global titles are carrying far less of it today, and social media also seems to be losing interest, if anything moving back towards more focus on Ukraine. Whilst you could argue the Braverman thing is ultimately about Israel-Palestine, it's not really. It's domestic politics.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
We will know for sure when Barty changes his profile pic back to England + Ukraine flags, rather than England + Israel as he has now.
When/if Iran and/or Hezbollah start to get properly involved then the middle east will regain its prominence especially if the impact is on oil and other commodity pricing.
Comments
When the police have been taking advise from race grifters and antisemites, who tell them nonsense like screaming about Jihadi was really a discussion of personal struggle, flags used by various Islamists groups are really just the printing of a call to prayer on a flag, etc
The thing about Braverman, I think she is a rubbish politician in the sense of if your goal is to win power (not actually effect positive change). There are ways of messaging, or getting outriders to message that you think they things, without running into this issue. Then we get several days about ohhh bad / inappropriate words were said, etc etc etc and distracts from the actual issue at hand.
I'd lay Braverman, as the hyped candidate, but I do fear they're crazy enough to do it. Might be value in backing her as a trading bet. Depending on the composition of the Tory rump after the next GE, there might be a concerted effort to block her at the MP level. Or maybe not - has anyone done an analysis on who is likely to be left in the CPP under X seats outcomes?
Did Braverman explicitly challenge collective cabinet decisions? I can’t see it
Isn't it like homelessness - more deserving of sympathy than of condemnation?
I am becoming more convinced by the day that she is going to be the next leader, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
Questioning policing decisions after the event, from opposition, really isn't quite the same thing.
And apparently the Met now agree that they were less than ideal.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-apologise-pay-compensation-women-held-vigil-2023-09-13/
I would hope she shows more restraint when in office; we will see.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/11/06/our-cabinet-league-table-cleverly-goes-top-for-the-first-time/
If she wants to personally direct operational policing, she should give herself those powers - and see how the electorate reacts to that.
The law currently states explicitly that operational decisions are for the police themselves, not politicians.
As it is, she's trying to direct the police via the media.
;-)
The Mail has a really good science and tech section - better than any other British newspaper (partly because they can afford it, as they are rich). Good editors, good journalists
They very often break science/tech stories before anyone else - including the USA - and they cover them with greater expertise and insight
It generally isn’t influenced in either way by the paper’s political stance
It’s also worth noting the growing influence of Daily Mail USA. They often get American stories before American media
I assume if this happens the powers that be should look at amending the 20 over rule.
As I’ve said many times before, Liz Truss would have been better. At least she had ideas, policies, and legislation she’d have brought forward in this session.
Sunak is worse than Brown, the PM who burned all the bridges to get the top job, but knew not what to do with it.
I've next to no sympathy with the protest this weekend, but I wouldn't ban it.
She’s probably loving it
I agree with those that say her aim is likely to get herself sacked at some point by Sunak. So she is detached from the electoral disaster of 2024. Then she can blame Sunak and Co for being too Woke
I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice."
Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase.
Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices?
Undeniably.
Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle?
Hard to see why.
Dictionary definition
"a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
permitforbid (yikes!) politicians from having diverse opinions, but it does permit a Prime Minister to fire a Minister for any reason they see fit. That's what "invited me to form a Government" means. Apocryphally Clem Attlee fired a Minister with the phrase "not up to it".I've been waiting for replies for 45 minutes.
How do you define some? I mean it actually might be true for 1% of those who sleep rough. If those 28% think 'some' is a small minority then they should be lumped in with the 57% not the 6%. So the result is then:
85 : 6
Not
57 : 34
Presumably the answer is somewhere in between. Rubbish question of course.
Here are the total for 0 through 9 wickets at 20 overs DLS par
45 50 58 68 82 98 118 139 156 169
I think in this situation the game should either be no result or bowling team wins.
You could argue that's a bit unfair on the team that batted first but if the bowling side is ahead of the DLS par for 20 overs at say 10 overs then a No result is more than the team that batted first could realistically expect.
The Daily Mail Group makes about £1bn a year in revenue; the Guardian about £220m
The Guardian also makes a loss, the Mail a profit
Part of the problem for the Guardian is the the New York Times (which is hugely rich) has almost identical views and uses the same angles
The Daily Mail has found a niche not really exploited in the USA
She kept off asking me about stories - no science background but was trying to honestly understand.
The main problem was Big Reporters jumping in and editors rewriting stories seemingly at random.
Put Farage and Braverman up against each other in a leadership competition and he would win the drink down the pub vote hands down. And assuming the party goes full UKIP post election and he remains outside, he will be there reminding people there's always the real thing.
They did consider two options. Herd immunity - it would eventually work but with serious costs to the old gits and the very sick. Or a vaccine. One of the few things that Bojo got right - appoint a person familiar with the pharmaceutical industry and the civil service to bang their heads together - who happened to be female.
Sedwill's great idea was to rearrange the civil service to be more civil-servicy. No doubt so that he could sit back and preen over an increased head-count. Remember the First Division motto. Scientists - On tap, not on top,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/09/mothers-children-held-hostage-hamas-all-we-want-is-them-home
No 10 has now diisavowed Suella's attempts to whip up a riot in London via the Times. Suella said that the article had got the green light from No 10. So either they are fibbing or she is. Or, most likely, she didn't understand the question she was asked
This really isn't about a pathetically over promoted and 'intellectually challenged' Home Secretary any more. It is all about Mr Sunak. Is he so out of touch and/or so weak that he can't do what is so obviously necessary?
I don't know the whole story, but I suspect the only way to get him off the street permanently would be to get him sectioned and institutionalised in some way. I'm not sure that would actually be kinder.
This doesn't, of course, less us as a country off our obligations to help people into suitable accommodation, but it does show that there are some problems even large sums of money can't satisfactorily solve, and that no matter how good our system there will probably be some people who have a "lifestyle choice" in which they insist on living on the streets. Obviously the root issue is usually tangled up with mental health problems, and we should treat such people kindly, but we probably have to accept it's not a problem we can solve.
Heath; Braverman is saying stuff that no other senior politician says, but lots of non political people in working class areas are.
Opinion polls at the time overwhelmingly backed Powell, and the Tories surprisingly won the next election, despite his sacking
In one sense it could be a good tactic as it’s creating a wedge issue between the Tories and the twitterati/Centrist Dad .Labour
I might lay Lab at 1.36 for overall majority now. Or a little bet on Con Maj at 12 - provable losers but dividing people up on issues like this is - them anti protest/Labour outraged at them for being anti the protests/lefties attending the protests is their only chance
Braverman is a continuation of that - she's just doing it in the style of the the US MAGA GOP instead of in the typical UK manner.
There was one chap in Wiltshire who lived in tents/temp accommodation from choice. Used to odd job his way round Europe in winter and send postcards to the pub from everywhere.
The other 99.999% consist of the two homelessness problems.
I'm fond of "just rejoice at that news" too – Maggie Thatcher.
1) people like the chap you mention. Their problems are so severe that inhabiting a property doesn’t work for them. Their homelessness is a symptom of their condition, not a cause.
2) a much larger group of people living in horrible conditions, but with a roof. Of sorts. Waiting for decent, permanent accommodation.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
"Present but not involved" was another good one, the British 21st C answer to Clinton not inhaling.
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
It’s not that humans are uncaring, but things that we can link directly to ourselves hurt more…
“ was not the ignorant suffering of an animal. She knew well enough what
was happening to her--understood as well as I did how dreadful a destiny
it was to be kneeling there in the bitter cold, on the slimy stones of a
slum backyard, poking a stick up a foul drain-pipe.”
So if you've got a habit, you have to stay on the street.
That's what I have been told happens locally.
[I'm not saying that was the issue here]
She gave legal opinions that were obviously wrong, which some might describe as stupid
If it was only as simple as getting them inside, it would have been done many years ago. And yet it goes on in, in all countries.
Its great! The algorithm rewards you for attracting loads of new viewers and subscribers, rewards people commenting on your video and rewards you for replying. To say nothing about ad revenue earned!
Thanks GB News viewers! This will have been a very profitable experiment...
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
Net result is that it's easier to hide a drug habit in sheltered accommodation than alcoholism.
How many PB'ers would last more than a day in a house that wouldn't let them drink?
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nadine-dorries-book-the-plot-claims-summary-key-points-mpbzh9v68