Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Patel stiffens the support on the right. Penny stiffens up the centre.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Patel stiffens the support on the right. Penny stiffens up the centre.
She certainly does have a lot of male fans.
Male enthusiasm aside, I agree she would probably campaign, and poll, better than Sunak as things stand now.
This header reminded me of many science fiction novels.
For example, Julius/Steven Graves in Charles Sheffield's Heritage Universe stories. To join the Ethical Council, Graves was required to get an implant that would give him the space to store the "history, biology, and psychology of every intelligent and potentially intelligent species in the whole spiral arm". (Convergent Series, p. 81) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheffield#The_Heritage_Universe
He is given a choice of a physical or biological implant. He chooses the second, and his brain is almost doubled in size. And the new addition develops consciousness, so he is simultaneously Julius and Steven (though in later books, the two combine into "Julian").
(I've read and enjoyed all the books in the series -- but bought all of them used, which should tell you something. Briefly, I thought Sheffield never came up with an answer to the problem he posed at the very beginning: What happened to the alien "Builders" who constructed so many extraordinary structures in the spiral arm, and then vanished, millions of years ago.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
So you’re looking forward to a Labour government, given the unholy damage the Tories have made to unionism?
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
No, you work for the things that make the UK great.
It is the ability of the UK to deliver those things that makes the UK a great entity.
No, it's not that transactional: the UK is a country with an unique identity, values and history that informs how it looks, how it works, how it operates and how it is. It's been built-up over centuries. It's a contract between the dead, the living and the yet-to-be-born.
It's not just a simple summation of whoever happens to be living in it at the time, even if that has a pure demographic logic as an equation.
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
That doesn't matter. If she loses her seat, the tories have lost the election by a lolsome margin anyway so who gives a fuck.
She is more fluent liar than Sunak but is crippled by the burden of a self-serving vanity of leonesque proportions so, on balance, probably a better campaigner but worse PM than our cashew dicked incumbent.
She's certainly emphatic, and one of the least pompous Tory PPCs/MPs I ever met, but outside a couple of good (well-rehearsed) performances in the Commons there just isn't that much depth or intellectual rigour to her. She'd get found out pretty quickly, even if she called a GE immediately to try and bounce through the campaign.
She's essentially a British centre-right Jacinda Ardern. But she won't get the pass she did because she's on the wrong side.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
The games will not follow the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that athletes will be able to take performance-enhancing drugs.
The founders hope that it will eventually become a competitor to the Olympics.
And to anyone who responds 'Is that Tuesday's Leader or Friday's?', hello.
Oh dear. I know Christian Angermeyer pretty well
He’s a complete chance and hype merchant! I’m not a believe in longevity research but its fans are quite something!
Longevity research is an area where 1) the basic idea is fairly sensible 2) it attracts a horde of fruit and nut cakes.
What’s the regulatory pathway to approval given the inability to design a properly controlled clinical study?
The sane kind of longevity research creates things that we can actually run scientific trials upon. For example, there is research into treatments to reduce muscle wastage and bone issues in the elderly.
It’s almost as if doing something ethical and reproducible is a good idea.
The kind of longevity technology which will work is one that incrementally fixes/alleviates various issues on a one by one basis. Almost certainly.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
So you’re looking forward to a Labour government, given the unholy damage the Tories have made to unionism?
No, I dread the day it comes.
Hey Casino, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate Starmer fans will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks, leaflets with dodgy bar charts...
How about we use the phrase "overly sensitive" instead of woke? For example, I'd say the Cleopatra thing was "overly sensitive" to a ridiculous degree in trying to change history. Does it work, perhaps something else would be better.
That seems a legitimate example of where that word went too far but it's blurred into other things like the England kit. So that's why I petition for a new word.
Navy cancels ship briefings after damning internal report As China’s fleet grows, the U.S. is struggling with fresh delays in building new subs and warships. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/07/navy-cancels-ship-briefings-internal-report-00150879 … The Navy’s top admiral and civilian secretary have still not responded to questions about a damning Navy report released Tuesday outlining the sweeping failure of the Navy and its industrial partners to make expected progress on two submarine programs, an aircraft carrier and a new class of frigates.
“Our nation should be incredibly frustrated to see such systemic delays to our marquee shipbuilding programs,” Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.) said.
The delays, from one to three years each depending on the program, come as the Navy and Pentagon pour billions into modernizing and upgrading shipyards in an attempt to build and repair ships more quickly and keep pace with China. Beijing’s navy has already surpassed the U.S. in size.
But supply chain issues caused by Covid and the Navy’s insistence on changing the design of its ships even as workers build them have thrown the service’s plans into uncertainty.
Aware of the issues for years, the Navy is still unsure how to fix them...
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
I sort of agree and disagree.
I do think the word has completely lost all meaning and I now try and avoid it. I think there are legitimate examples where that word has gone too far, for example making Cleopatra black in a documentary was clearly nonsensical and historically inaccurate.
But that's clearly different to the England kit which was changed in 2012 and nobody called it that word and nobody batted an eyelid then as far as I can see.
That doesn't matter. If she loses her seat, the tories have lost the election by a lolsome margin anyway so who gives a fuck.
She is more fluent liar than Sunak but is crippled by the burden of a self-serving vanity of leonesque proportions so, on balance, probably a better campaigner but worse PM than our cashew dicked incumbent.
She's certainly emphatic, and one of the least pompous Tory PPCs/MPs I ever met, but outside a couple of good (well-rehearsed) performances in the Commons there just isn't that much depth or intellectual rigour to her. She'd get found out pretty quickly, even if she called a GE immediately to try and bounce through the campaign.
She's essentially a British centre-right Jacinda Ardern. But she won't get the pass she did because she's on the wrong side.
I think there's actually something in that last point, particularly. That's a very interesting comparison I think there, because both she and Ardern are unusually good at empathy and communication for politicians.
However, she also has the partially military background that Ardern didn't. A bit of soft but also a little bit of hard, and so possibly less of a wipeout than under Sunak.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
When has a PM ever lost his or her seat in this country?
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
No, you work for the things that make the UK great.
It is the ability of the UK to deliver those things that makes the UK a great entity.
No, it's not that transactional: the UK is a country with an unique identity, values and history that informs how it looks, how it works, how it operates and how it is. It's been built-up over centuries. It's a contract between the dead, the living and the yet-to-be-born.
It's not just a simple summation of whoever happens to be living in it at the time, even if that has a pure demographic logic as an equation.
That doesn't mean that our particular snapshot of the UK in 2024 need be frozen in aspic forever.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on
At its core democracy is simply a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. It works more often than not.
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals.
If only. It actually boils down to competing ideologies. I know which side I'm on in that battle, but I would never have chosen to fight it. It does no-one any good.
It’s been seized by ideologues but that’s not the same thing.
Take the example of women’s refuges: does a physical male who identifies as female have the right to enter because they are deemed female? Do the women who are currently there have the right to an environment free from the presence of a physical male?
That’s a straight conflict between the rights of two individuals
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Patel stiffens the support on the right. Penny stiffens up the centre.
Suspect that the Conservatives have reached the Unlucky Alf stage where Patel's presence would put off the centrists and Mordaunt the right wingers.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
Her views on trans ideology, gender ideology and the definition of a woman. She piloted through Parliament a ministerial maternity leave Bill that referred only to “pregnant people", which the Lords overturned, and in response to accepting this said, "trans men are men and trans women are women". Plus, 'her' book - Greater Britain: After the Storm - threw some weird barbs at British cultural history. Tone-deafness towards the past and Year Zeroism is exactly what many Tories dislike about wokery.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on
At its core democracy is simply a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. It works more often than not.
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals.
If only. It actually boils down to competing ideologies. I know which side I'm on in that battle, but I would never have chosen to fight it. It does no-one any good.
It’s been seized by ideologues but that’s not the same thing.
Take the example of women’s refuges: does a physical male who identifies as female have the right to enter because they are deemed female? Do the women who are currently there have the right to an environment free from the presence of a physical male?
That’s a straight conflict between the rights of two individuals
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
The example in question relies on a protected group (women) making the accommodation.
What if some of the women in the shelter had objected?
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Consider the issue of battered men - which is a thing. Where do they go?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Consider the issue of battered men - which is a thing. Where do they go?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
A case by case basis?
To me these are the real issues that are coming up and that need to be understood and worked through.
A case by case basis seems impractical, "let me check on a sliding scale how bad your injuries are"? Which I guess is synonymous to "please stand here whilst every person in this refuge is asked if they want you as a trans person here or not". And do they have to say they are trans - what if you can't tell?
These issues must not be intractable but are certainly difficult.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on
At its core democracy is simply a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. It works more often than not.
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals
Well, almost. The state also takes an interest if it is required to pay for surgery to change the nature of the body. The question of 'should individuals be allowed to have medical intervention to change their gender characteristics' is different to 'should the state pay for individuals to have medical intervention to change their gender characteristics' - for the costs involved, but more importantly for the responsibility implied by that. There is also the question of 'to what extent should the state encourage or discourage individuals to have medical intervention to change gender characteristics' - for example, what position do schools take?
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
No, you work for the things that make the UK great.
It is the ability of the UK to deliver those things that makes the UK a great entity.
No, it's not that transactional: the UK is a country with an unique identity, values and history that informs how it looks, how it works, how it operates and how it is. It's been built-up over centuries. It's a contract between the dead, the living and the yet-to-be-born.
It's not just a simple summation of whoever happens to be living in it at the time, even if that has a pure demographic logic as an equation.
That doesn't mean that our particular snapshot of the UK in 2024 need be frozen in aspic forever.
Has anyone frozen a society. The Shogunate *tried*, but despite a culture that included leaving a phrase in the language for “checking your sword in functional* on a passing stranger”, society persisted in changing.
*they had one of the worst methods of attaching a grip to a sword, ever.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Consider the issue of battered men - which is a thing. Where do they go?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Consider the issue of battered men - which is a thing. Where do they go?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
If they exist, possibly. My guess is the women's refuge was able to meet the trans women's need and in principle was willing to meet it. Quite likely they checked with the other women in the refuge first, which in theory could mean refusing the request if they said no. But having been threatened themselves these women understood the plight of the trans women and the consequence of denying them the safe space.
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
I suppose my question on a purely practical basis would be, where should these people go? To a trans refuge instead?
Consider the issue of battered men - which is a thing. Where do they go?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
A case by case basis?
What about BatteredCorrectHorses?
I would say the RSPCA. But they might well put them down.
Ah, I’ve got it. Phone Sir Keith “Genocide and Kid Starver” Starmer about a donkey sanctuary. Horses and donkeys get on very well together.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
She was good in one of the debates last time. I think she does have potential as an excellent politician-communicator, possibly with a more neutral sidekick.
For this reason I can't see her and Patel working as a double bill.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
Very interesting article, @viewcode, and I'm intrigued about the philosophical basis she's propounding - but I think you needf to find another term instead of 'humanist'. Humanist has a very clear existing meaning, and I'd argue strongly that not only is there potential confusion between using it in two different contexts, but also that people who are humanists in the existing usage would largely not be at what you call the 'humanist' end of the transhuman axis.
I was reading through all the comments waiting to see if someone had made this point as, if they had not, I was going to make it. I consider myself a Humanist in the normal, atheistic, live and let live, sense of the term and that is a million miles from what Harrington is proposing which is extreme social conservatiism and, to my mind, pretty abhorant.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
You raise an interesting point here.
Something I often think about with this issue is, "does it matter". Which is I am sure where Mr Royale will disagree.
I do not see how knowing that a particular National Trust estate was involved a slavery makes a difference, isn't the estate exactly as it was ten years ago and ten years before that? I can walk by these notices just as I do so for ones that say "may contain nuts".
There are other examples which are clearly ridiculous like I've referred to above. But another one I am not quite sure about is putting warnings on comedy programmes - I am not sure if this is really right when comedy in my view has always pushed the boundaries of acceptability and bad taste. But then again I can just avoid these warnings. Perhaps a more ridiculous example would be removing/editing examples of already published works, to me that is "too far" and not something I can easily avoid.
I think this is - for once - a quite interesting debate which I will be honest, is still very much developing in my mind.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
Have we discussed the prospect of a TRUSS return? Are we entering the Age of Liz?
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
When has a PM ever lost his or her seat in this country?
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
Have we discussed the prospect of a TRUSS return? Are we entering the Age of Liz?
Have we discussed the prospect of the floor to Tory support actually being 0%?
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
Her views on trans ideology, gender ideology and the definition of a woman. She piloted through Parliament a ministerial maternity leave Bill that referred only to “pregnant people", which the Lords overturned, and in response to accepting this said, "trans men are men and trans women are women". Plus, 'her' book - Greater Britain: After the Storm - threw some weird barbs at British cultural history. Tone-deafness towards the past and Year Zeroism is exactly what many Tories dislike about wokery.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
I'm not sure she'd be welcomed by liberal centrists either, given she's a Brexiteer associated with the Turkey is joining the EU propaganda. Ultimately, she'd probably end up like Sunak in alienating both liberal centrists and anti-woke, ERG, Faragist types.
Am I the only person who thought the header was about the ancient practice of moving stock on to fresh pastures in early humans?
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
No you’re not the only one.
I’ve spent the last week in Alpe D’Huez, admittedly skiing rather than studying ancient transhumance practices. But it’s one of those fascinating modes of human existence, and that area of France is full of ancient, actual Alps where farmers were taking their sheep and goats up for the summer until the ski stations arrived.
I’ve always quite liked the romanticism of the idea, and my son seems very taken by it, to the extent (inspired by a documentary he saw on Argentinian gauchos) he’s suggesting he’d like to give it a go.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
Her views on trans ideology, gender ideology and the definition of a woman. She piloted through Parliament a ministerial maternity leave Bill that referred only to “pregnant people", which the Lords overturned, and in response to accepting this said, "trans men are men and trans women are women". Plus, 'her' book - Greater Britain: After the Storm - threw some weird barbs at British cultural history. Tone-deafness towards the past and Year Zeroism is exactly what many Tories dislike about wokery.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
I'm not sure she'd be welcomed by liberal centrists either, given she's a Brexiteer associated with the Turkey is joining the EU propaganda. Ultimately, she'd probably end up like Sunak in alienating both liberal centrists and anti-woke, ERG, Faragist types.
It's deinitely going to be a big ask for any Tory leader in the current circumstances, but I do think she has better communication skills than Sunak.
He can do sunny and technocratic, but not so much directly empathic in an economic situation where a lot of people are still feeling the squeeze econoimucally.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
When has a PM ever lost his or her seat in this country?
Arthur James Balfour did, in 1906.
FAKE NEWS - as (I forgot) Balfour & his entire govt resigned, letting Liberals under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman take over BEFORE the 1906 GE.
Last PM to do that. Perhaps Rishi Sunak might try for 21-century re-enactment? Likely with similar results!
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Did you miss this one? It was major news a couple of summers ago (around the BLM riots).
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Did you miss this one? It was major news a couple of summers ago (around the BLM riots).
I don’t recall it to be honest but that’s my ignorance as stated.
@turbotubbs facile example perhaps but do you draw the line anywhere? What about statues of dictators, or of Hitler? We keep those up?
Good point and it’s absolute right for a society to keep evolving. I think there is a line, for sure. Hitler, Stalin, Mao clearly I would tear down. But someone like Colston who has been found guilty of crimes against modern opinion, I think a more nuanced approach should be possible.
@turbotubbs facile example perhaps but do you draw the line anywhere? What about statues of dictators, or of Hitler? We keep those up?
Good point and it’s absolute right for a society to keep evolving. I think there is a line, for sure. Hitler, Stalin, Mao clearly I would tear down. But someone like Colston who has been found guilty of crimes against modern opinion, I think a more nuanced approach should be possible.
Who decides the line?
I agree with what you are saying for what it’s worth but I find it hard who should decide the line.
There’s an argument that it would be better to leave historical references in place and to educate instead. I would draw the line at Hitler too but I can see the argument.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Did you miss this one? It was major news a couple of summers ago (around the BLM riots).
I don’t recall it to be honest but that’s my ignorance as stated.
We all have blind spots and gaps in our knowledge. Usually mine is ignorance of musicians that have died and a PBer will post ‘tragic that xxx yyy’ has died, and I will have no idea who they were. Colston, being Bristol and thus local or me (ish) and on the local news was perhaps a bigger thing for me.
"A Dublin man appeared in court completely nude and refused to wear clothes after his "emotional support" cat went missing during a traffic stop arrest."
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on
At its core democracy is simply a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. It works more often than not.
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals.
If only. It actually boils down to competing ideologies. I know which side I'm on in that battle, but I would never have chosen to fight it. It does no-one any good.
It’s been seized by ideologues but that’s not the same thing.
Take the example of women’s refuges: does a physical male who identifies as female have the right to enter because they are deemed female? Do the women who are currently there have the right to an environment free from the presence of a physical male?
That’s a straight conflict between the rights of two individuals
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
Proper trans with their bits chopped off, or pretend trans blokes in dresses?
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
When has a PM ever lost his or her seat in this country?
Arthur James Balfour did, in 1906.
FAKE NEWS - as (I forgot) Balfour & his entire govt resigned, letting Liberals under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman take over BEFORE the 1906 GE.
Last PM to do that. Perhaps Rishi Sunak might try for 21-century re-enactment? Likely with similar results!
Ramsay Macdonald also lost his seat in the 1935 election immediately after resigning as PM.
I think those were the only two to be defeated at an election ending a Parliament where they had served as PM in the immediately preceding months. Asquith in 1918 would be another at the following election but he'd been forced from office two years before.
Interestingly, all of them were in the era of the First World War.
It's worth remembering though that prior to 1900 most PMs came from the Lords or were elevated there while in office, and since 1945 most potential PMs have sat for safe seats anyway.
The games will not follow the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that athletes will be able to take performance-enhancing drugs.
The founders hope that it will eventually become a competitor to the Olympics.
And to anyone who responds 'Is that Tuesday's Leader or Friday's?', hello.
Oh dear. I know Christian Angermeyer pretty well
He’s a complete chance and hype merchant! I’m not a believe in longevity research but its fans are quite something!
Longevity research is an area where 1) the basic idea is fairly sensible 2) it attracts a horde of fruit and nut cakes.
What’s the regulatory pathway to approval given the inability to design a properly controlled clinical study?
The sane kind of longevity research creates things that we can actually run scientific trials upon. For example, there is research into treatments to reduce muscle wastage and bone issues in the elderly.
It’s almost as if doing something ethical and reproducible is a good idea.
The kind of longevity technology which will work is one that incrementally fixes/alleviates various issues on a one by one basis. Almost certainly.
May be we are talking at cross-purposes.
Research into a treatment for osteoporosis, for example, is a good thing. It may be a disease associated with aging but that doesn’t make it longevity research.
You can run a controlled clinical study comparing a product vs a bisphosphonate (it’s been 20 years since I have looked at osteoporosis- spend more time in OA at the moment - so don’t know if that is still the SOC).
You can’t really with some of the crackpot stuff that Christian promotes
This header reminded me of many science fiction novels.
For example, Julius/Steven Graves in Charles Sheffield's Heritage Universe stories. To join the Ethical Council, Graves was required to get an implant that would give him the space to store the "history, biology, and psychology of every intelligent and potentially intelligent species in the whole spiral arm". (Convergent Series, p. 81) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheffield#The_Heritage_Universe
He is given a choice of a physical or biological implant. He chooses the second, and his brain is almost doubled in size. And the new addition develops consciousness, so he is simultaneously Julius and Steven (though in later books, the two combine into "Julian").
(I've read and enjoyed all the books in the series -- but bought all of them used, which should tell you something. Briefly, I thought Sheffield never came up with an answer to the problem he posed at the very beginning: What happened to the alien "Builders" who constructed so many extraordinary structures in the spiral arm, and then vanished, millions of years ago.
At least not an answer that satisfied me.)
A similar kind of thing with the transhumans in the Revelation Space books by Alistair Reynolds.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Scared of left wing arseholes. Same people who renamed the Colston Hall. Maybe they should have knocked it down and not had any concerts any more.
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
Our two best meal options if we have people over for dinner are Sri Lankan rice and curry and pizza. The former is pretty spicy but delicious, usually about ten seperate dishes. I think the days of British people not liking spicy or strong tasting food are over. Maybe pizza is the safer option though - I usually make 6 or 7 pizzas including a seafood one, goats cheese and caramelised onion, a four cheese and a white one with potato and rosemary, plus garlic bread. I do the dough in the bread machine, make the sauce with garlic and chilli, and top with a mix of mild cheddar and buffalo mozzarella.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
Her views on trans ideology, gender ideology and the definition of a woman. She piloted through Parliament a ministerial maternity leave Bill that referred only to “pregnant people", which the Lords overturned, and in response to accepting this said, "trans men are men and trans women are women". Plus, 'her' book - Greater Britain: After the Storm - threw some weird barbs at British cultural history. Tone-deafness towards the past and Year Zeroism is exactly what many Tories dislike about wokery.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
I'm not sure she'd be welcomed by liberal centrists either, given she's a Brexiteer associated with the Turkey is joining the EU propaganda. Ultimately, she'd probably end up like Sunak in alienating both liberal centrists and anti-woke, ERG, Faragist types.
It's deinitely going to be a big ask for any Tory leader in the current circumstances, but I do think she has better communication skills than Sunak.
He can do sunny and technocratic, but not so much directly empathic in an economic situation where a lot of people are still feeling the squeeze econoimucally.
I've never seen her laugh in a voter's face. "Hahahaha - one of those proles thought it was a human and said something to me - hahahaha!"
"A Dublin man appeared in court completely nude and refused to wear clothes after his "emotional support" cat went missing during a traffic stop arrest."
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Scared of left wing arseholes.
Not true. Marvin Rees had been trying to take it down for years but stymied by opposition from within the city. The compromise eventually reached, much against his will, was that a plaque explaining the role of Colston in the slave trade would be added to the statue. But this foundered because Rees (who as mayor would have to approve it) and the Merchant Venturers (who as the owners would have to pay for it) couldn't agree on the wording.
So when the statue was torn down he was delighted and declared he wouldn't put it back up.
I've sometimes wondered if there was more to that than met the eye. But that may just be because I know Rees slightly and dislike him intensely.
Am I the only person who thought the header was about the ancient practice of moving stock on to fresh pastures in early humans?
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
Probably
Surely some of the other history buffs on here too?
Though I’m a geographer so I see transhumance as a modern phenomenon not just something for the archaeologists.
That sounds like an Egyptologist I know who thinks Roman History should be classed as Modern Studies.
A good friend of mine always jokingly derides 90% of archaeology as modern rubbish as his speciality is in human evolution and early man and as far as he is concerned anything after the last Ice Age is just froth on the top.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
Have we discussed the prospect of a TRUSS return? Are we entering the Age of Liz?
Have we discussed the prospect of the floor to Tory support actually being 0%?
Only THE TRUSS can achieve a floor below that point, she laughs in the face of negative numbers. She eats mathematical paradoxes for breakfast.
Am I the only person who thought the header was about the ancient practice of moving stock on to fresh pastures in early humans?
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
Probably
Surely some of the other history buffs on here too?
Though I’m a geographer so I see transhumance as a modern phenomenon not just something for the archaeologists.
That sounds like an Egyptologist I know who thinks Roman History should be classed as Modern Studies.
No, different point. Transhumance is very much a current mode of life, practised in lots of places around the world including in rich countries in Western Europe and even North America.
In winter the community is together in the valleys, livestock warm in their sheds. Up in the mountains it’s all snowy and dead. Come early summer the snow melts, the grass starts growing on the high pastures and the men (usually) take the herds up to graze for a few months, living an austere but footloose life with few worries except the odd wolf, while the women take care of the kids, go to market and manufacture crafts.
A fascinating life. Little touched on in modern literature or cinema. Strangely enough Brokeback Mountain probably captures the upland grazing bit of it as well as any.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
Good example and fair point. Although in the case of the Colston statue a long campaign to have it appropriately explained had come to nowt, so I'd argue 'a bit more nuance' had been tried, and failed.
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
Our two best meal options if we have people over for dinner are Sri Lankan rice and curry and pizza. The former is pretty spicy but delicious, usually about ten seperate dishes. I think the days of British people not liking spicy or strong tasting food are over. Maybe pizza is the safer option though - I usually make 6 or 7 pizzas including a seafood one, goats cheese and caramelised onion, a four cheese and a white one with potato and rosemary, plus garlic bread. I do the dough in the bread machine, make the sauce with garlic and chilli, and top with a mix of mild cheddar and buffalo mozzarella.
Agree on the pizza. Good thing with pizza is if you can make a decent crust at home it’s considered a triumph, even if you could get the same from Zizzi.
Georgian Khachapuri is a variation on the same theme and instantly point scoring.
Am I the only person who thought the header was about the ancient practice of moving stock on to fresh pastures in early humans?
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
Probably
Surely some of the other history buffs on here too?
Though I’m a geographer so I see transhumance as a modern phenomenon not just something for the archaeologists.
That sounds like an Egyptologist I know who thinks Roman History should be classed as Modern Studies.
No, different point. Transhumance is very much a current mode of life, practised in lots of places around the world including in rich countries in Western Europe and even North America.
In winter the community is together in the valleys, livestock warm in their sheds. Up in the mountains it’s all snowy and dead. Come early summer the snow melts, the grass starts growing on the high pastures and the men (usually) take the herds up to graze for a few months, living an austere but footloose life with few worries except the odd wolf, while the women take care of the kids, go to market and manufacture crafts.
A fascinating life. Little touched on in modern literature or cinema. Strangely enough Brokeback Mountain probably captures the upland grazing bit of it as well as any.
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
I don't think there's much chance of her being a winning PM, just maybe not losing by as much as feared. No, if she became Tory leader it would just be the Tories trying to fool the electorate that they haven't moved too far to the right. I don't think that would work.
I disagree, I think it would be the Tories desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out and believing (rightly imo) that Mordaunt has enough about her to achieve that.
I also suspect that she will hold her seat regardless, and definitely hold it as Tory leader and PM.
Sure she would be very unlikely to remain as PM after the GE but I believe she would do well enough to continue as LOTO and, barring major mishaps, lead them into a 2028/9 GE.
Ther Tories should really dump Sunak and select Mordaunt. I hope they don't.
Maybe, but the leader has to spend a lot of time out of their constituency,
When has a PM ever lost his or her seat in this country?
Arthur James Balfour did, in 1906.
FAKE NEWS - as (I forgot) Balfour & his entire govt resigned, letting Liberals under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman take over BEFORE the 1906 GE.
Last PM to do that. Perhaps Rishi Sunak might try for 21-century re-enactment? Likely with similar results!
Ramsay Macdonald also lost his seat in the 1935 election immediately after resigning as PM.
I think those were the only two to be defeated at an election ending a Parliament where they had served as PM in the immediately preceding months. Asquith in 1918 would be another at the following election but he'd been forced from office two years before.
Interestingly, all of them were in the era of the First World War.
It's worth remembering though that prior to 1900 most PMs came from the Lords or were elevated there while in office, and since 1945 most potential PMs have sat for safe seats anyway.
Note that, after losing his seat, Ramsey Macdonald still remained in HMG, under his successor Stanley Baldwin, and returned to House of Commons via by-election as MP for Scottish Universities until his death at sea (both literally AND politically).
The games will not follow the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that athletes will be able to take performance-enhancing drugs.
The founders hope that it will eventually become a competitor to the Olympics.
And to anyone who responds 'Is that Tuesday's Leader or Friday's?', hello.
Oh dear. I know Christian Angermeyer pretty well
He’s a complete chance and hype merchant! I’m not a believe in longevity research but its fans are quite something!
Longevity research is an area where 1) the basic idea is fairly sensible 2) it attracts a horde of fruit and nut cakes.
What’s the regulatory pathway to approval given the inability to design a properly controlled clinical study?
The sane kind of longevity research creates things that we can actually run scientific trials upon. For example, there is research into treatments to reduce muscle wastage and bone issues in the elderly.
It’s almost as if doing something ethical and reproducible is a good idea.
The kind of longevity technology which will work is one that incrementally fixes/alleviates various issues on a one by one basis. Almost certainly.
May be we are talking at cross-purposes.
Research into a treatment for osteoporosis, for example, is a good thing. It may be a disease associated with aging but that doesn’t make it longevity research.
You can run a controlled clinical study comparing a product vs a bisphosphonate (it’s been 20 years since I have looked at osteoporosis- spend more time in OA at the moment - so don’t know if that is still the SOC).
You can’t really with some of the crackpot stuff that Christian promotes
Yes - that’s what I mean. The fact you can fit such work into an ethical and scientific framework is very indicative.
Medical science will advance. Almost inevitably this will lead to life extension. If we stop old people decaying physically and mentally, what is left?
Consider how many gazillions that is worth…..
The wu wu stuff - might as well do chants with cheap glass “crystals”.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Not sure that 'I was frustrated' is much of a defence under the law for criminal damage. Turning to violence when you can't get your own way is infantile in the extreme.
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
I'd go for a proper Aubergine Parmigiana made with an intense tomato sauce, served with a fresh green salad and homemade focaccia.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Could you summarise why she is woke?
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
Her views on trans ideology, gender ideology and the definition of a woman. She piloted through Parliament a ministerial maternity leave Bill that referred only to “pregnant people", which the Lords overturned, and in response to accepting this said, "trans men are men and trans women are women". Plus, 'her' book - Greater Britain: After the Storm - threw some weird barbs at British cultural history. Tone-deafness towards the past and Year Zeroism is exactly what many Tories dislike about wokery.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
I'm not sure she'd be welcomed by liberal centrists either, given she's a Brexiteer associated with the Turkey is joining the EU propaganda. Ultimately, she'd probably end up like Sunak in alienating both liberal centrists and anti-woke, ERG, Faragist types.
It's deinitely going to be a big ask for any Tory leader in the current circumstances, but I do think she has better communication skills than Sunak.
He can do sunny and technocratic, but not so much directly empathic in an economic situation where a lot of people are still feeling the squeeze econoimucally.
I've never seen her laugh in a voter's face. "Hahahaha - one of those proles thought it was a human and said something to me - hahahaha!"
Yes, I think it's either her, or Sunak through to November or December.
No one else is being talked about seriously, at the moment.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
She was good in one of the debates last time. I think she does have potential as an excellent politician-communicator, possibly with a more neutral sidekick.
For this reason I can't see her and Patel working as a double bill.
But as she didn't get to the final 2 it was hardly 'David Cameron speaks without notes' stuff? Especially given the obvious shortcomings of the other two (and of course backed Truss despite her being an idiot as she thought she'd win).
It's just...well...she's been in parliament 14 years, hasn't had a great office of state and only a senior ministerial role for a few months - not entirely her fault, but still, big beasts can't be ignored forever. Nor has she carved out a position as some kind of firebrand or great communicator of the backbenches offering a new direction (fnarr!).
Where's the beef? A lot of it seems to be based on an imaginary version of her that some Tories see as an ideal leader rather than looking at the reality. Which is that owing to 14 years in government, civil war and squabbles ending careers, and not really intellectually renewing as thought they'd keep on winning, on all sides they are very much down to the B or C team.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
The statue is on display in a museum now. Plenty in Bristol supported the statue’s removal; plenty opposed.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
No Tory (and so she should be a 'least bad' option). But she does strike me as slightly odd as a politician. Like all the bits should fit together to make an effective more moderate leading Tory. But they never quite do. Every time she seems to get a big occasion she seems to sound a bit strange and miss the moment (other than when is carrying a sword). A bit like Badenoch on the right, I think there's an element of people elevating her beyond evidence to date because ticks the boxes of what they'd ideally see as an effective Tory leader.
She was good in one of the debates last time. I think she does have potential as an excellent politician-communicator, possibly with a more neutral sidekick.
For this reason I can't see her and Patel working as a double bill.
But as she didn't get to the final 2 it was hardly 'David Cameron speaks without notes' stuff? Especially given the obvious shortcomings of the other two (and of course backed Truss despite her being an idiot as she thought she'd win).
It's just...well...she's been in parliament 14 years, hasn't had a great office of state and only a senior ministerial role for a few months - not entirely her fault, but still, big beasts can't be ignored forever. Nor has she carved out a position as some kind of firebrand or great communicator of the backbenches offering a new direction (fnarr!).
Where's the beef? A lot of it seems to be based on an imaginary version of her that some Tories see as an ideal leader rather than looking at the reality. Which is that owing to 14 years in government, civil war and squabbles ending careers, and not really intellectually renewing as thought they'd keep on winning, on all sides they are very much down to the B or C team.
Why did she not stand in 2016?
Why was she not able to overcome the issues she had when she did run? It shows a lack of political skill.
Am I the only person who thought the header was about the ancient practice of moving stock on to fresh pastures in early humans?
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
Probably
Surely some of the other history buffs on here too?
Though I’m a geographer so I see transhumance as a modern phenomenon not just something for the archaeologists.
That sounds like an Egyptologist I know who thinks Roman History should be classed as Modern Studies.
No, different point. Transhumance is very much a current mode of life, practised in lots of places around the world including in rich countries in Western Europe and even North America.
In winter the community is together in the valleys, livestock warm in their sheds. Up in the mountains it’s all snowy and dead. Come early summer the snow melts, the grass starts growing on the high pastures and the men (usually) take the herds up to graze for a few months, living an austere but footloose life with few worries except the odd wolf, while the women take care of the kids, go to market and manufacture crafts.
A fascinating life. Little touched on in modern literature or cinema. Strangely enough Brokeback Mountain probably captures the upland grazing bit of it as well as any.
I've seen this in Italy and Central Greece.
It certainly is practised here in Europe.
There was an article in a local magazine I was reading this week about a shepherdess (“bergère”) in the Écrins mountains. A really compelling story, she’d done her studies and travelled a bit, was looking for a job and a friend suggested shepherding.
Months on your own with just the flock and a trusty dog. Actual wolves occasionally coming down from the woods to take a sheep. A blog, and an instagram account. A small stone cabin with running water and some solar panels. No flute, unfortunately.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A screaming mob in Bristol - and the Council has then decided not to reinstate it.
Do we know why the Council has not?
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Scared of left wing arseholes.
Not true. Marvin Rees had been trying to take it down for years but stymied by opposition from within the city. The compromise eventually reached, much against his will, was that a plaque explaining the role of Colston in the slave trade would be added to the statue. But this foundered because Rees (who as mayor would have to approve it) and the Merchant Venturers (who as the owners would have to pay for it) couldn't agree on the wording.
So when the statue was torn down he was delighted and declared he wouldn't put it back up.
I've sometimes wondered if there was more to that than met the eye. But that may just be because I know Rees slightly and dislike him intensely.
After it was toppled, the Merchant Venturers said, “the fact that [the statue] has gone is right for Bristol”.
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
I'd go for a proper Aubergine Parmigiana made with an intense tomato sauce, served with a fresh green salad and homemade focaccia.
Were you watching the same episode?? Two of the contestants made Aubergine Parmigiana on separate nights!
"A Dublin man appeared in court completely nude and refused to wear clothes after his "emotional support" cat went missing during a traffic stop arrest."
Well, what do YOU do when you're required to appear in court without your emotional support cat?
I’m watching an old episode of come dine with me (we don’t have internet TV here so it’s whatever’s on). What would you serve for your guests if you were on?
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
Fancy starters (prepared ahead of time ideally) and comfort food main is the way to go. Not that I have dinner parties anymore.
In general buy in your desserts, fruit, cheese etc but I guess that doesn't fly for Come Dine with Me.
Comments
I blame her sword carrying.
Male enthusiasm aside, I agree she would probably campaign, and poll, better than Sunak as things stand now.
For example, Julius/Steven Graves in Charles Sheffield's Heritage Universe stories. To join the Ethical Council, Graves was required to get an implant that would give him the space to store the "history, biology, and psychology of every intelligent and potentially intelligent species in the whole spiral arm". (Convergent Series, p. 81)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheffield#The_Heritage_Universe
He is given a choice of a physical or biological implant. He chooses the second, and his brain is almost doubled in size. And the new addition develops consciousness, so he is simultaneously Julius and Steven (though in later books, the two combine into "Julian").
(I've read and enjoyed all the books in the series -- but bought all of them used, which should tell you something. Briefly, I thought Sheffield never came up with an answer to the problem he posed at the very beginning: What happened to the alien "Builders" who constructed so many extraordinary structures in the spiral arm, and then vanished, millions of years ago.
At least not an answer that satisfied me.)
4/10. Meh.
It's not just a simple summation of whoever happens to be living in it at the time, even if that has a pure demographic logic as an equation.
Read her "book".
She's essentially a British centre-right Jacinda Ardern. But she won't get the pass she did because she's on the wrong side.
I petitioned PB for a new word recently, as I do think "woke" has lost all meaning.
It’s almost as if doing something ethical and reproducible is a good idea.
The kind of longevity technology which will work is one that incrementally fixes/alleviates various issues on a one by one basis. Almost certainly.
That seems a legitimate example of where that word went too far but it's blurred into other things like the England kit. So that's why I petition for a new word.
Open to the group.
Navy cancels ship briefings after damning internal report
As China’s fleet grows, the U.S. is struggling with fresh delays in building new subs and warships.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/07/navy-cancels-ship-briefings-internal-report-00150879
… The Navy’s top admiral and civilian secretary have still not responded to questions about a damning Navy report released Tuesday outlining the sweeping failure of the Navy and its industrial partners to make expected progress on two submarine programs, an aircraft carrier and a new class of frigates.
“Our nation should be incredibly frustrated to see such systemic delays to our marquee shipbuilding programs,” Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.) said.
The delays, from one to three years each depending on the program, come as the Navy and Pentagon pour billions into modernizing and upgrading shipyards in an attempt to build and repair ships more quickly and keep pace with China. Beijing’s navy has already surpassed the U.S. in size.
But supply chain issues caused by Covid and the Navy’s insistence on changing the design of its ships even as workers build them have thrown the service’s plans into uncertainty.
Aware of the issues for years, the Navy is still unsure how to fix them...
I do think the word has completely lost all meaning and I now try and avoid it. I think there are legitimate examples where that word has gone too far, for example making Cleopatra black in a documentary was clearly nonsensical and historically inaccurate.
But that's clearly different to the England kit which was changed in 2012 and nobody called it that word and nobody batted an eyelid then as far as I can see.
Yet these are both called the same thing.
We need a new word for the former.
However, she also has the partially military background that Ardern didn't. A bit of soft but also a little bit of hard, and so possibly less of a wipeout than under Sunak.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
She's pretty sheep-dipped in identity politics, even though she's started to row back over the last 2 years as she realises what a millstone that is. But she has a long way to go before people start to believe her.
What if some of the women in the shelter had objected?
Should a shelter for battered men allow women across the threshold? What about the case of gay, battered men?
A case by case basis?
A case by case basis seems impractical, "let me check on a sliding scale how bad your injuries are"? Which I guess is synonymous to "please stand here whilst every person in this refuge is asked if they want you as a trans person here or not". And do they have to say they are trans - what if you can't tell?
These issues must not be intractable but are certainly difficult.
There is also the question of 'to what extent should the state encourage or discourage individuals to have medical intervention to change gender characteristics' - for example, what position do schools take?
*they had one of the worst methods of attaching a grip to a sword, ever.
Ah, I’ve got it. Phone Sir Keith “Genocide and Kid Starver” Starmer about a donkey sanctuary. Horses and donkeys get on very well together.
For this reason I can't see her and Patel working as a double bill.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I was reading through all the comments waiting to see if someone had made this point as, if they had not, I was going to make it. I consider myself a Humanist in the normal, atheistic, live and let live, sense of the term and that is a million miles from what Harrington is proposing which is extreme social conservatiism and, to my mind, pretty abhorant.
Something I often think about with this issue is, "does it matter". Which is I am sure where Mr Royale will disagree.
I do not see how knowing that a particular National Trust estate was involved a slavery makes a difference, isn't the estate exactly as it was ten years ago and ten years before that? I can walk by these notices just as I do so for ones that say "may contain nuts".
There are other examples which are clearly ridiculous like I've referred to above. But another one I am not quite sure about is putting warnings on comedy programmes - I am not sure if this is really right when comedy in my view has always pushed the boundaries of acceptability and bad taste. But then again I can just avoid these warnings. Perhaps a more ridiculous example would be removing/editing examples of already published works, to me that is "too far" and not something I can easily avoid.
I think this is - for once - a quite interesting debate which I will be honest, is still very much developing in my mind.
(Transhumance, in case anyone wondered…)
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
Ultimately, she'd probably end up like Sunak in alienating both liberal centrists and anti-woke, ERG, Faragist types.
I’ve spent the last week in Alpe D’Huez, admittedly skiing rather than studying ancient transhumance practices. But it’s one of those fascinating modes of human existence, and that area of France is full of ancient, actual Alps where farmers were taking their sheep and goats up for the summer until the ski stations arrived.
I’ve always quite liked the romanticism of the idea, and my son seems very taken by it, to the extent (inspired by a documentary he saw on Argentinian gauchos) he’s suggesting he’d like to give it a go.
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
He can do sunny and technocratic, but not so much directly empathic in an economic situation where a lot of people are still feeling the squeeze econoimucally.
The mob is clearly nuts and not in line with public opinion.
Last PM to do that. Perhaps Rishi Sunak might try for 21-century re-enactment? Likely with similar results!
I agree with what you are saying for what it’s worth but I find it hard who should decide the line.
There’s an argument that it would be better to leave historical references in place and to educate instead. I would draw the line at Hitler too but I can see the argument.
Colston, being Bristol and thus local or me (ish) and on the local news was perhaps a bigger thing for me.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0407/1442212-courts-cat/
"A Dublin man appeared in court completely nude and refused to wear clothes after his "emotional support" cat went missing during a traffic stop arrest."
Has to be sophisticated enough not to be marked down for laziness. But has to be universally likeable and not odd or spicy enough to divide the field. And there has to be a decent vegetarian option.
So I’m thinking I’d do a roast. Don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do a roast on CDWM.
I think those were the only two to be defeated at an election ending a Parliament where they had served as PM in the immediately preceding months. Asquith in 1918 would be another at the following election but he'd been forced from office two years before.
Interestingly, all of them were in the era of the First World War.
It's worth remembering though that prior to 1900 most PMs came from the Lords or were elevated there while in office, and since 1945 most potential PMs have sat for safe seats anyway.
Research into a treatment for osteoporosis, for example, is a good thing. It may be a disease associated with aging but that doesn’t make it longevity research.
You can run a controlled clinical study comparing a product vs a bisphosphonate (it’s been 20 years since I have looked at osteoporosis- spend more time in OA at the moment - so don’t know if that is still the SOC).
You can’t really with some of the crackpot stuff that Christian promotes
She's at 13.5 as next PM. Bargain. I've never seen her laugh in a voter's face. "Hahahaha - one of those proles thought it was a human and said something to me - hahahaha!"
So when the statue was torn down he was delighted and declared he wouldn't put it back up.
I've sometimes wondered if there was more to that than met the eye. But that may just be because I know Rees slightly and dislike him intensely.
TRUSS.
In winter the community is together in the valleys, livestock warm in their sheds. Up in the mountains it’s all snowy and dead. Come early summer the snow melts, the grass starts growing on the high pastures and the men (usually) take the herds up to graze for a few months, living an austere but footloose life with few worries except the odd wolf, while the women take care of the kids, go to market and manufacture crafts.
A fascinating life. Little touched on in modern literature or cinema. Strangely enough Brokeback Mountain probably captures the upland grazing bit of it as well as any.
Georgian Khachapuri is a variation on the same theme and instantly point scoring.
It certainly is practised here in Europe.
He's a bank clerk who wears golden shoes
And the boy can sing
St Paul and the Broken Bones
https://youtu.be/6vpXX5BjltM?si=MxeXS_KGuP3BVQt9
Medical science will advance. Almost inevitably this will lead to life extension. If we stop old people decaying physically and mentally, what is left?
Consider how many gazillions that is worth…..
The wu wu stuff - might as well do chants with cheap glass “crystals”.
No one else is being talked about seriously, at the moment.
It's just...well...she's been in parliament 14 years, hasn't had a great office of state and only a senior ministerial role for a few months - not entirely her fault, but still, big beasts can't be ignored forever. Nor has she carved out a position as some kind of firebrand or great communicator of the backbenches offering a new direction (fnarr!).
Where's the beef? A lot of it seems to be based on an imaginary version of her that some Tories see as an ideal leader rather than looking at the reality. Which is that owing to 14 years in government, civil war and squabbles ending careers, and not really intellectually renewing as thought they'd keep on winning, on all sides they are very much down to the B or C team.
I guess as before there is a line.
Why was she not able to overcome the issues she had when she did run? It shows a lack of political skill.
To me, she’s incredibly overrated.
Months on your own with just the flock and a trusty dog. Actual wolves occasionally coming down from the woods to take a sheep. A blog, and an instagram account. A small stone cabin with running water and some solar panels. No flute, unfortunately.
Turn up CLOTHED?
Weirdo.
In general buy in your desserts, fruit, cheese etc but I guess that doesn't fly for Come Dine with Me.