Liquid checks to be re-introduced at airports which had briefly got rid of them.
Talk about going backwards.
Any reason given? Someone got wind of something?
IIRC the pilot of dropping the checks involved new-tech scanners, so the assumption would be that the new scanners aren’t as good as the salesman said they were. Presumably spooks ‘mystery shop’ airports with genuine explosives (stored safely) from time to time.
There's an excellent video on YouTube about how the new scanners work, and how they attempt to identify liquids
The conclusion was that the 3D scanning was great for meaning you don't need to remove electronic, but that the methods used to identify liquids where not accurate enough yet. (They work by having XRays at two slightly different wavelengths, and then measure absorption rates of each of the two. By measuring the difference, you can be *reasonably* accurate, but it's far from foolproof currently.)
I wonder if they've stopped using them at Rome airport as well.
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
This is the direct descendant of the Continuing SDP which David Owen fronted after the merger, those SDP that did not want merger. Owen wound it up effectively after coming behind the Loonies in the 1990 Bootle by election but a few stalwarts decided to keep on troshing and it survived with a couple of councillors in Yorkshire (from memory, Bridlington). Its undergone a bit of a revival since endorsement from Rod Liddle and ex MEP Patrick O'Flynn
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
This is the direct descendant of the Continuing SDP which David Owen fronted after the merger, those SDP that did not want merger. Owen wound it up effectively after coming behind the Loonies in the 1990 Bootle by election but a few stalwarts decided to keep on troshing and it survived with a couple of councillors in Yorkshire (from memory, Bridlington). Its undergone a bit of a revival since endorsement from Rod Liddle and ex MEP Patrick O'Flynn
Thanks. I wondered as well.
The highlight for my constituency (same as @Taz 's now after my previous one was abolished) judging from the nomination papers was the local lunatic (styles himself a "political prisoner" - won't say any more) was going to run as an independent, but he seems to have pulled out despite getting all the nominee signatures. It will be a ludicrously huge labour landside, likely contributed to by me, but the libs do have a chance of getting my vote if they ask nicely. Rest can forget it....
(Mrs Saurus despite being an immigrant who's been fucked over continuously by the tories will still vote for them tho, mostly in a "fuck you dumbosaurus" thing about our different views on Zambian politics )
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
This is the direct descendant of the Continuing SDP which David Owen fronted after the merger, those SDP that did not want merger. Owen wound it up effectively after coming behind the Loonies in the 1990 Bootle by election but a few stalwarts decided to keep on troshing and it survived with a couple of councillors in Yorkshire (from memory, Bridlington). Its undergone a bit of a revival since endorsement from Rod Liddle and ex MEP Patrick O'Flynn
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
As you write, they're mildly left-wing on economics while being socially conservative in an Old Labour sort of way rather than a traditional Tory one, if that makes sense. They seem to have some sort of deal with Reform UK in a few constituencies, most notably in Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland where Rod Liddle is their candidate. Their leader is William Clouston. Interview on this video.
Some of us did say quite consistently that Sunak was a dud, and strongly advised the wibbly wibbly Tory MPs who are now losing their jobs to ditch him whilst they could.
For who? None of the alternatives in parliament would likely be doing much better.
They had a once in a generation charismatic general election winner in Boris, they ditched him and Tory MPs who did so will now likely mostly lose their seats as a result.
Much as once Labour ditched their once in a generation charismatic election winner in Blair it took them a generation to get a general election winning leader again (and even now Starmer is no Blair charisma wise)
Boris wouldn’t be winning this election, and who knows what other moral failures he would have been exposed as having been party to had he stayed. Tories were well shot, their problem was the messy way they had to get rid of a liability and then screwing the leadership election
Boris would be getting 200 seats plus at least and Reform would not be polling 15%.
Most of Boris' voters now voting Reform didn't give a toss about partygate anyway anymore than most Trump voters couldn't give a toss about the Stormy Daniels case
You may well be right, however political leaders shouldn’t misguidedly follow voters into a morally bankrupt position. It’s their duty to uphold a minimum standard. The world will be a terrible place if we insist on having a high standard for anyone we disagree with and a lower standard for anyone on our side.
I am in no position to judge you, and you might be the exception, but in my experience most people have a somewhat flexible view on leaders’ moral failings if they are otherwise delivering what they want. Equally they are quick to find serious moral failings in leaders they dislike anyway.
In any event, people act like we have a noble tradition of morally pure PMs when actually many of the ones from years past who we now venerate as great make Boris look like a saint. Lloyd-George, who won us a war and invented the welfare state, sold peerages for example.
Lloyd-George introduced the welfare state here, but he didn't invent it - that was Bismarck. Agree with your wider point though.
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
As you write, they're mildly left-wing on economics while being socially conservative in an Old Labour sort of way rather than a traditional Tory one, if that makes sense. They seem to have some sort of deal with Reform UK in a few constituencies, most notably in Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland where Rod Liddle is their candidate. Their leader is William Clouston. Interview on this video.
No deal in Grantham and Bourne. We have both the SDP and Reform standing. I suspect it is a safe Tory hold - even after the boundary changes. The main change is personal as my village has been moved from Sleaford and North Hykeham into G&B. Not that it will make any difference I think as both are blue rosette monkey territory.
These are the 12 seats I'm aware of so far where RefUK aren't standing.
Sheffield (5): Brightside & Hillsborough, Central, Hallam, Heeley, South East Earley & Woodley Cheltenham East Grinstead & Uckfield Stone, Great Wyrley & Penkridge Maidenhead Epping Forest Oxford East
Hexham, Mid Dorset and Poole North, West Dorset, Bristol East, brighton Kemptown, Donny North, Chorley of course, Leeds South. Standing i think in 611/631 GB
18 seats in NI, so 632 in GB (obviously including Chorley).
If not standing in 20, means they are standing in 612.
In memory of Bill Anders, NASA astronaut on Apollo 8, who took one of the most famous photographs in history and who died in a plane crash on Friday at the age of 90.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
This is the direct descendant of the Continuing SDP which David Owen fronted after the merger, those SDP that did not want merger. Owen wound it up effectively after coming behind the Loonies in the 1990 Bootle by election but a few stalwarts decided to keep on troshing and it survived with a couple of councillors in Yorkshire (from memory, Bridlington). Its undergone a bit of a revival since endorsement from Rod Liddle and ex MEP Patrick O'Flynn
Thanks. I wondered as well.
The highlight for my constituency (same as @Taz 's now after my previous one was abolished) judging from the nomination papers was the local lunatic (styles himself a "political prisoner" - won't say any more) was going to run as an independent, but he seems to have pulled out despite getting all the nominee signatures. It will be a ludicrously huge labour landside, likely contributed to by me, but the libs do have a chance of getting my vote if they ask nicely. Rest can forget it....
(Mrs Saurus despite being an immigrant who's been fucked over continuously by the tories will still vote for them tho, mostly in a "fuck you dumbosaurus" thing about our different views on Zambian politics )
Not sure who you mean by local lunatic unless you mean one of the anti Akehurst brigade who were threatening to run due to Gaza. I know that a councillor in south CLS looked at running but decided against but he’s just a hard working local councillor who’d have little support outside of his ward.
I expect Luke Akehurst to win. Comfortably.
The Lib Dem is a North Lodge councillor and, for a Lib Dem, seems pretty rational. The Green guy is a martial arts practitioner based in Durham. Can’t say I know a great deal,about the rest.
In memory of Bill Anders, NASA astronaut on Apollo 8, who took one of the most famous photographs in history and who died in a plane crash on Friday at the age of 90.
Beautiful. That's the defining photo for the whole 20th C imo. What, I wonder will the defining photo for the 21st C be of?
(PS To puncture the tone: where's the dog for scale?)
(PPS I didn't know that Bill Anders had died - I imagine he'd have been happy to go that way, no need to explain anything in his log book after all.)
Mildly disappointed there's no Reform candidate in West Dorset - it means the odious Chris Loder will almost certainly be back. It's the 2nd safest seat Tory seat in the country according to EC.
I've also just noticed my constituency, North Dorset, is now the safest Tory seat in the country - even though we do have both Reform UKIP candidates.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I've been looking at those leaving the Commons by intake. If the polls are anything like correct we could be looking at a 250 strong intake this year and even the oldest heads might be rolling.
Out of the pre 1992 MPs, the Leader of the House, Peter Bottomley looks in danger in Worthing West, Edward Leigh should be fine in Gainsborough, Jeremy Corbyn is probably 50/50 in Islington North, Roger Gale should get in at Herne Bay & Sandwich, David Davis should be reelected in Goole & Pocklington and Diane Abbott is safe as houses in Hackney North & Stoke Newington.
Mildly disappointed there's no Reform candidate in West Dorset - it means the odious Chris Loder will almost certainly be back. It's the 2nd safest seat Tory seat in the country according to EC.
I've also just noticed my constituency, North Dorset, is now the safest Tory seat in the country - even though we do have both Reform UKIP candidates.
Mildly disappointed there's no Reform candidate in West Dorset - it means the odious Chris Loder will almost certainly be back. It's the 2nd safest seat Tory seat in the country according to EC.
I've also just noticed my constituency, North Dorset, is now the safest Tory seat in the country - even though we do have both Reform UKIP candidates.
Mildly disappointed there's no Reform candidate in West Dorset - it means the odious Chris Loder will almost certainly be back. It's the 2nd safest seat Tory seat in the country according to EC.
I've also just noticed my constituency, North Dorset, is now the safest Tory seat in the country - even though we do have both Reform UKIP candidates.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
It's nonsense of course - I hear today's teens are LESS likely to smoke marijuana.
West Dorset was a seat that the Lib Dems never quite managed to get, despite Billy Bragg's best efforts. But it feels like they should this year, there was 20 councillors elected as part of Dorset Council from that constituency this May and 15 of them were Lib Dems.
In memory of Bill Anders, NASA astronaut on Apollo 8, who took one of the most famous photographs in history and who died in a plane crash on Friday at the age of 90.
Now only six people alive who went to the moon and only four who walked on its surface.RIP General Anders.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
Peter Bowles was in TTMB with Penelope Richard Briars was in the Good Life with Penelope
I know! Schoolboy error from me. Trying to wind up Heathener who is somehow about 70 and 17 at the same time. It’s not like To The Manor Born is an obscure TV series. It’s one from the classics of the age, and as has been said, both stands up well AND is an interesting social/historical commentary.
Funnily enough most people who know me in real life, as opposed to on here, mark me as typical GenZ in outlook and views. Which I take as a compliment.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
I bought a radio recently. I play Magic in the kitchen while I iron.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
I listen to the radio quite a bit, particularly Radio 4, 5Live, 6Music and Radio Leicester.
Radio is one thing that I miss most from Britain when abroad.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
I listen to the radio quite a bit, particularly Radio 4, 5Live, 6Music and Radio Leicester.
Radio is one thing that I miss most from Britain when abroad.
BBC sounds is surprisingly good even without VPN shenanigans. You'll get Round Britain Quiz no problem from overseas.
So Mordaunt surprised on the downside? Is that the consensus?
She was largely invisible. But I felt sorry for her being stationed next to Angela, who dominated as you would expect.
Nigel and Angela streets ahead of the rest. The format favours the bolshy, the bullish and the insouciant: hence Nigel and Angela won easily.
The stage seemed too small for seven of them. In the early US primary debates with lots of candidates, they are always spaced quite far away from each other to give them some breathing room.
It was a strange venue wasn’t it: a theatre? Something in the half-round would have been far better and, as you say, a much bigger stage.
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
This is the direct descendant of the Continuing SDP which David Owen fronted after the merger, those SDP that did not want merger. Owen wound it up effectively after coming behind the Loonies in the 1990 Bootle by election but a few stalwarts decided to keep on troshing and it survived with a couple of councillors in Yorkshire (from memory, Bridlington). Its undergone a bit of a revival since endorsement from Rod Liddle and ex MEP Patrick O'Flynn
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
Peter Bowles was in TTMB with Penelope Richard Briars was in the Good Life with Penelope
I know! Schoolboy error from me. Trying to wind up Heathener who is somehow about 70 and 17 at the same time. It’s not like To The Manor Born is an obscure TV series. It’s one from the classics of the age, and as has been said, both stands up well AND is an interesting social/historical commentary.
Funnily enough most people who know me in real life, as opposed to on here, mark me as typical GenZ in outlook and views. Which I take as a compliment.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I have a current different world theory.
The biggest shocks to economies and people's lives are external: the Global Financial Crisis, the spike in energy prices caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, covid,etc.
The young (and for that matter voters generally) blame the party in government.
But it's rarely their fault. They are merely the victim of circumstance.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
I listen to the radio quite a bit, particularly Radio 4, 5Live, 6Music and Radio Leicester.
Radio is one thing that I miss most from Britain when abroad.
Oh sure. I listen to radio too just not ‘on a radio’, if you see what I mean.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
Yes, but how many young people watch BBC on Tuesday evenings?
I haven't watched live TV in years. My kids pretty much never have and probably never will.
It might be just me, but I somehow had the idea that Heathener is in her later years, but that may be wrong. Her story is often rather inconsistent.
Everyone knows Heathener lies in a vain attempt to be taken seriously on here, and the form of those lies varies depending on what's most convenient to her to use at the time.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I've been looking at those leaving the Commons by intake. If the polls are anything like correct we could be looking at a 250 strong intake this year and even the oldest heads might be rolling.
Out of the pre 1992 MPs, the Leader of the House, Peter Bottomley looks in danger in Worthing West, Edward Leigh should be fine in Gainsborough, Jeremy Corbyn is probably 50/50 in Islington North, Roger Gale should get in at Herne Bay & Sandwich, David Davis should be reelected in Goole & Pocklington and Diane Abbott is safe as houses in Hackney North & Stoke Newington.
Love this sort of thing. Bottomley looking a bit isolated even among the veterans.
Felt like more of the 2019 intake had thrown in the towel, but 10 still feels high.
Still unlikely but possible for Corbyn to be Father of the House.
Interesting article in the Times about "olfactory heritage".
Anyone who has grown up near a steelworks, a brewery or the sea understands the time-travelling power of smell. The power of a sudden and unexpected whiff of the past to recreate instantly a scene from childhood: football on a rutted field in the shadow of some belching factory, or for seaside dwellers the sulphurous odour of decomposing seaweed during a shoreline amble for flotsam. Brains are repositories for smells long banished from daily life by progress: the leather interior of a Morris Minor, the chemical intensity of a typewriter ribbon or the golden fullness of pies made freshly on the premises.
For me the two places where I think of smell more than anything else is Bridgwater and the old cellophane factory and Warrington and the smell of soap from Lever Brothers. Does anyone else have any now lost evocative smells?
The smell of the Smiths crisps factory in Brislington near my school, particularly when playing rugby.
The HP sauce factory in Aston. Smell of the Villa.
The smell of Edinburgh 35 years ago was the Marmite aroma of the Fountainbridge brewery.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
In my workplace (admittedly perhaps the most diverse workplace in one of the most diverse cities) the reason that the younger workers are a bit bored by diversity training is that they already live it, so it gets a very large element of "duh!" in response.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I’m unconvinced.
It’s not a paradigm shift but a reaction to events that flatters to deceive. There have always been far right phases but except a century ago, when external events were also traumatic, they still don’t represent the majority who hold the centre. And even then Hitler never won 50% of the vote.
Let’s see what happens in the EU votes and the US but I suspect that apart from a lot of excitement from Leon it will amount to less in reality than the hyperbole.
There’s a very good piece on this out today in fact by the excellent Katya Adler:
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I have a current different world theory.
The biggest shocks to economies and people's lives are external: the Global Financial Crisis, the spike in energy prices caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, covid,etc.
The young (and for that matter voters generally) blame the party in government.
But it's rarely their fault. They are merely the victim of circumstance.
I agree there is a lot in this, but I think you are downplaying the significance of culture and the reactive forces at play, which have been made more extreme by technology.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I have a current different world theory.
The biggest shocks to economies and people's lives are external: the Global Financial Crisis, the spike in energy prices caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, covid,etc.
The young (and for that matter voters generally) blame the party in government.
But it's rarely their fault. They are merely the victim of circumstance.
The cumulative effect of these on national finances and trust in government has created a very sceptical nation looking around for answers and not getting any.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
This is not true. The fact is that Millennials are unusually left wing, which leaves the impression that they exclude people on the right. But right wing millennials are far and few between.
Generalising about 1.8bn people with an age spread of 15-20 years (depending where you stop counting) is a mug’s game tbh.
And when *some* people make those generalisations, you can mentally replace the term with ‘young people these days’ to get closer to the point.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
It means underprerfoming companies can miss their financial targets but still pay director bonuses for box ticking.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Absolutely.
Crunching the actual numbers makes some of this fake news, whatever Leon might like to think.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Youth unemployment is lower in the UK and perhaps this has a bearing. In countries like France older people tend to be more pro EU and more anti the far right . They’re not fooled by Le Pens warm and cuddly makeover .
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Absolutely.
Crunching the actual numbers makes some of this fake news, whatever Leon might like to think.
The young aren't guaranteed to be left wing so heavily forever, and we've seen trends in other places to test effect. But it's not here in the UK yet I think.
Anyhooo, it’ll be interesting to see the polls post D-Day. I’m guessing that ones out tonight, if there are any, will just about have caught the reaction?
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this can all be encapsulated in 'voting intention' - particularly when there is no credible/significant 'right wing' option.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Agree on reform, but I suspect the draw of the far right to the young is just dormant rather than absent - at least in terms of our domestic politics. A lot of what there is, is heavily online and international, rather than the more in-person stuff that was excellently depicted (and rang very true to me from my own, later, youth) in This Is England.
For the new far right of the young there is less emphasis on electoral politics, especially outside the US.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
Yes, but how many young people watch BBC on Tuesday evenings?
I haven't watched live TV in years. My kids pretty much never have and probably never will.
It might be just me, but I somehow had the idea that Heathener is in her later years, but that may be wrong. Her story is often rather inconsistent.
Everyone knows Heathener lies in a vain attempt to be taken seriously on here, and the form of those lies varies depending on what's most convenient to her to use at the time.
Everyone.
Ah there you go again, slipping straight back to your Ad Hominem with your infamous ‘everyone’ line which is borne of your own insecurities and Alpha dogging.
You are a deeply unpleasant person who is both 1. out of touch and 2. damaging the Conservative cause. People I know who look at this site, see what you post, and just think ‘eww’.
p.s. 20 people liked one of my posts the other day so clearly not everyone agrees with your everyone lol
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
The bad examples, yes. They do vary in quality and content, it is pretty obvious when someone has just taken off the shelf talking points and spends the time talking about 'interesting ideas', usually out of america, rather than practical considerations and possibilities like blind shortlisting and the like.
That is, whether the focus is reflecting how the issues might be relevant to the organisation specifically, vs just repeating some slogans and pop psychology.
Anyhooo, it’ll be interesting to see the polls post D-Day. I’m guessing that ones out tonight, if there are any, will just about have caught the reaction?
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
I await with interest.
My guess is not much shift. Minds are broadly made up.
Anyhooo, it’ll be interesting to see the polls post D-Day. I’m guessing that ones out tonight, if there are any, will just about have caught the reaction?
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
I await with interest.
Opinium haven’t gone into hyperbolic bigging up their poll mode... yet !
A lot happened last week with Farage and DDay so it will be difficult to ascertain how much impact the latter had in their poll.
I wonder if Opinium might be able to give a bit more info re fieldwork conducted yesterday .
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
Peter Bowles was in TTMB with Penelope Richard Briars was in the Good Life with Penelope
I know! Schoolboy error from me. Trying to wind up Heathener who is somehow about 70 and 17 at the same time. It’s not like To The Manor Born is an obscure TV series. It’s one from the classics of the age, and as has been said, both stands up well AND is an interesting social/historical commentary.
Funnily enough most people who know me in real life, as opposed to on here, mark me as typical GenZ in outlook and views. Which I take as a compliment.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Absolutely.
Crunching the actual numbers makes some of this fake news, whatever Leon might like to think.
The young aren't guaranteed to be left wing so heavily forever, and we've seen trends in other places to test effect. But it's not here in the UK yet I think.
A more interesting demographic-political phenomenon in the UK has been the slowing of the traditional rightward shift with age, which to me is much more remarkable than young people being idealistic (Twas ever thus).
This *seems* to be a particular trend in the UK, and is perhaps a natural consequence of the Tories’ abandonment by degrees of the working-aged.
So going through the various candidates in my constituency I come across one standing for the Social Democratic Party. Are these related to the original SDP of the 80s?
Looking at their website this is a strange combinatin of views and policies. They say they are "a patriotic, economically left-leaning and culturally traditional party". Policies include:
Ending mass immigration by "promoting a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion" and "withdrawing from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty".
Renationalising railways, power supply and transmission and other utilituies
Funding the Construction of 100,000 social homes per year.
Re-establishing Grammar schools across the country
After the LibDems were formed, David Owen etc. formed a continuity SDP. After that party flopped, they wound it up… except some members of the rump party formed a continuity continuity SDP, a rump of a rump. That is the party that exists today.
At some point along the way, they swapped from being pro-Europe to being Eurosceptic. Thus, after the disintegration of UKIP, one UKIP MEP defected to them, which has been their only significant holding of office.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
This is what DEI training should be, about developing understanding of equalities legislation. But DEI in my experience is far from this. It is an attempt to require adherance to a specific political worldview. There are a few ideologues in the organisation who drive it forward, it gets watered down by management, and then it gets ignored, particularly by the people it is supposed to benefit. It goes in a predictable circuit like this.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
Buy that's just as bad, since it's not done to instruct employees in an effective way if so, as that is not the primary purpose, hence why the other standard approach besides a lecture is something bland and without much practical value.
I'd say it's a mixture, since those delivering it are usually passionate about a message, whilst the organisation is just ticking a box to cover their arse, as you point out, and would probably be content with anything.
"Tesla Board Chairperson Robyn Denholm urged shareholders to re-approve CEO Elon Musk's $46 billion pay package this week, saying the vote is "not about the money" while suggesting that Musk could leave Tesla or devote less time to the company if he isn't properly compensated."
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this can all be encapsulated in 'voting intention' - particularly when there is no credible/significant 'right wing' option.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
You need to be able to cite some counter evidence. For example polling on Trans rights shows a lot more support amongst the young, and little concern about immigration amongst them either.
See page 29 here for example in the Ipsos issues survey for March this year. 6% of 18-24 are concerned by immigration compared to 45% of the over 65's.
Obviously there is a small minority of far right youngsters, though even Yaxley-Lennons fellow marchers look Gen X, there are a few youngsters there too.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
This is what DEI training should be, about developing understanding of equalities legislation. But DEI in my experience is far from this. It is an attempt to require adherance to a specific political worldview. There are a few ideologues in the organisation who drive it forward, it gets watered down by management, and then it gets ignored, particularly by the people it is supposed to benefit. It goes in a predictable circuit like this.
Exactly this. I've actually had some useful sessions in the past, but they stand out amongst ones driven by an individual crusader which are done and then to to all practical effect forgotten.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
I don’t have a tv and haven’t watched anything on tv for c. 10 years.
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”? (Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
I listen to the radio quite a bit, particularly Radio 4, 5Live, 6Music and Radio Leicester.
Radio is one thing that I miss most from Britain when abroad.
Oh sure. I listen to radio too just not ‘on a radio’, if you see what I mean.
The radio is on most of the time here, but we seldom watch tv. I could easily live without the latter, but not the former.
"Tesla Board Chairperson Robyn Denholm urged shareholders to re-approve CEO Elon Musk's $46 billion pay package this week, saying the vote is "not about the money" while suggesting that Musk could leave Tesla or devote less time to the company if he isn't properly compensated."
Interesting article in the Times about "olfactory heritage".
Anyone who has grown up near a steelworks, a brewery or the sea understands the time-travelling power of smell. The power of a sudden and unexpected whiff of the past to recreate instantly a scene from childhood: football on a rutted field in the shadow of some belching factory, or for seaside dwellers the sulphurous odour of decomposing seaweed during a shoreline amble for flotsam. Brains are repositories for smells long banished from daily life by progress: the leather interior of a Morris Minor, the chemical intensity of a typewriter ribbon or the golden fullness of pies made freshly on the premises.
For me the two places where I think of smell more than anything else is Bridgwater and the old cellophane factory and Warrington and the smell of soap from Lever Brothers. Does anyone else have any now lost evocative smells?
HP sauce near to Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham. It was neither pleasant nor unpleasant but very pervasive. I believe the factory is closed now.
A smell that used to be everywhere but has almost disappeared is coal smoke.
York used to have two distinctive smells. Chocolate from Terry’s and Beet from the Sugar Beet Factory. Both long gone.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
That is delusional nonsense! It is about ensuring that staff behave according to the law of the land in terms of equalities legislation.
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
The main question is whether how it is delivered is effective, not if there is a laudable intent behind it.
My argument is it can be but usually is not, so it needs to be better done if we want it to be more than box ticking. It can serve as a figleaf for an organisation to claim it takes these issues seriously but does not.
So someone could be both all for it and that currently, in many places, it is performative and doesn't really mean anything.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Missed the debate last night. We were supposed to go out, got caught in a downpour on the way to the station. Came home. Dried off. Drank a bottle of my 13% cider and fell asleep. However social media tells me the winner was the person from the party the poster most supports. Any impartial views on the debate ? I saw a poll by more in common had Farage as the winner.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
That is delusional nonsense! It is about ensuring that staff behave according to the law of the land in terms of equalities legislation.
I think what a lot of PB Tories really mean is that they find it boring to sit through ?
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
The country could probably afford it tomorrow if they got rid and added 4-5p to each of the income tax bands. Those at the bottom would pay less overall those on the very top incomes would actually pay a fairer share. Government would probably be marginally up on the deal too.
Kevin Maguire was saying, on the GMB politics slot this week, that he was speaking to Blair once and he suggested they nip out for a drink. Blair said he couldn’t just do that due to the reaction of people to him. He was a feared of being attacked.
Anyhooo, it’ll be interesting to see the polls post D-Day. I’m guessing that ones out tonight, if there are any, will just about have caught the reaction?
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
I await with interest.
My guess is not much shift. Minds are broadly made up.
I think so too
Same happened in '97. There was no cut through during the election campaign ALTHOUGH the polls did start to narrow about 2 weeks out.
Do we think there's any chance now of this happening? Or has the tory brand been well and truly f*cked?
It may go the other way and their slide continues. Who wants to back a loser?
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
Comments
The highlight for my constituency (same as @Taz 's now after my previous one was abolished) judging from the nomination papers was the local lunatic (styles himself a "political prisoner" - won't say any more) was going to run as an independent, but he seems to have pulled out despite getting all the nominee signatures. It will be a ludicrously huge labour landside, likely contributed to by me, but the libs do have a chance of getting my vote if they ask nicely. Rest can forget it....
(Mrs Saurus despite being an immigrant who's been fucked over continuously by the tories will still vote for them tho, mostly in a "fuck you dumbosaurus" thing about our different views on Zambian politics
CDU/CSU 29%
AfD 18%
SPD 14%
Greens 12%
BSW 9%
FDP 4%
Left 4%
FW 2%
Others 8%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad8z4m1V6_o
Lab 455
Con 86
LD 65
SNP 20
PC 3
Ref 1
Grn 1
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
No deal in Grantham and Bourne. We have both the SDP and Reform standing. I suspect it is a safe Tory hold - even after the boundary changes. The main change is personal as my village has been moved from Sleaford and North Hykeham into G&B. Not that it will make any difference I think as both are blue rosette monkey territory.
If not standing in 20, means they are standing in 612.
Earthrise
In memory of Bill Anders, NASA astronaut on Apollo 8, who took one of the most famous photographs in history and who died in a plane crash on Friday at the age of 90.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
I expect Luke Akehurst to win. Comfortably.
The Lib Dem is a North Lodge councillor and, for a Lib Dem, seems pretty rational. The Green guy is a martial arts practitioner based in Durham. Can’t say I know a great deal,about the rest.
(PS To puncture the tone: where's the dog for scale?)
(PPS I didn't know that Bill Anders had died - I imagine he'd have been happy to go that way, no need to explain anything in his log book after all.)
I've also just noticed my constituency, North Dorset, is now the safest Tory seat in the country - even though we do have both Reform UKIP candidates.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
Edit: if Loder and Hoare are the last two Tory MPs standing the party will still be deeply split haha!
I guess the question is, is there a market on the Conservative to get the largest majority?
I only ever use my MacBook and iPhone. Stream or rip everything. I agree with Mrs @BartholomewRoberts about TikTok for music. I love it for that.
p.s. what is a “radio”?
(Ok that last bit is a joke but seriously wtf is a radio these days?). Can you even buy them?
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
Radio is one thing that I miss most from Britain when abroad.
The Bradley is wild; like medieval jousting.
https://x.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1799173430371119588
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1799118722319221080
The only time I fiddle with a VPN is TMS
But she compounded that by jabbing her finger at Rayner, constantly interrupting, and sounding shrill.
The biggest shocks to economies and people's lives are external: the Global Financial Crisis, the spike in energy prices caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, covid,etc.
The young (and for that matter voters generally) blame the party in government.
But it's rarely their fault. They are merely the victim of circumstance.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
Everyone.
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
Hmm. Interesting.
Felt like more of the 2019 intake had thrown in the towel, but 10 still feels high.
Still unlikely but possible for Corbyn to be Father of the House.
It’s not a paradigm shift but a reaction to events that flatters to deceive. There have always been far right phases but except a century ago, when external events were also traumatic, they still don’t represent the majority who hold the centre. And even then Hitler never won 50% of the vote.
Let’s see what happens in the EU votes and the US but I suspect that apart from a lot of excitement from Leon it will amount to less in reality than the hyperbole.
There’s a very good piece on this out today in fact by the excellent Katya Adler:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22vne9x03o
Labour 1997 -2010 - 9/11, Iraq GFC
Conservatives 2010-24 - Brexit, Covid , Ukraine.
The cumulative effect of these on national finances and trust in government has created a very sceptical nation looking around for answers and not getting any.
It’s kind of amusing to me that if a female dares critique another female on here there’s a pile-on from right wing men.
One rule for them ...
And when *some* people make those generalisations, you can mentally replace the term with ‘young people these days’ to get closer to the point.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Crunching the actual numbers makes some of this fake news, whatever Leon might like to think.
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
I await with interest.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
For the new far right of the young there is less emphasis on electoral politics, especially outside the US.
You are a deeply unpleasant person who is both 1. out of touch and 2. damaging the Conservative cause. People I know who look at this site, see what you post, and just think ‘eww’.
p.s. 20 people liked one of my posts the other day so clearly not everyone agrees with your everyone lol
That is, whether the focus is reflecting how the issues might be relevant to the organisation specifically, vs just repeating some slogans and pop psychology.
A lot happened last week with Farage and DDay so it will be difficult to ascertain how much impact the latter had in their poll.
I wonder if Opinium might be able to give a bit more info re fieldwork conducted yesterday .
This *seems* to be a particular trend in the UK, and is perhaps a natural consequence of the Tories’ abandonment by degrees of the working-aged.
At some point along the way, they swapped from being pro-Europe to being Eurosceptic. Thus, after the disintegration of UKIP, one UKIP MEP defected to them, which has been their only significant holding of office.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/07/man-arrested-after-attacking-denmarks-prime-minister-mette-frederiksen
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
I'd say it's a mixture, since those delivering it are usually passionate about a message, whilst the organisation is just ticking a box to cover their arse, as you point out, and would probably be content with anything.
"Tesla Board Chairperson Robyn Denholm urged shareholders to re-approve CEO Elon Musk's $46 billion pay package this week, saying the vote is "not about the money" while suggesting that Musk could leave Tesla or devote less time to the company if he isn't properly compensated."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/tesla-chair-says-elon-musk-needs-46-billion-pay-plan-to-stay-motivated/
See page 29 here for example in the Ipsos issues survey for March this year. 6% of 18-24 are concerned by immigration compared to 45% of the over 65's.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:0bf811ae-0585-4fe4-9fc2-2a88fbfa7430
Obviously there is a small minority of far right youngsters, though even Yaxley-Lennons fellow marchers look Gen X, there are a few youngsters there too.
The vote share order goes:
1. Lab
2. Con
3. Reform
4. LD
But the seats are
Labour - mid to high 400s
Lib Dem’s - 70-80
Cons - 60 odd
SNP - 30 odd
Greens 2
Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
My argument is it can be but usually is not, so it needs to be better done if we want it to be more than box ticking. It can serve as a figleaf for an organisation to claim it takes these issues seriously but does not.
So someone could be both all for it and that currently, in many places, it is performative and doesn't really mean anything.
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Figure from the Spectator:
https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/1799162430360019134?t=uJ9VFyEvdpxkm1kBGrjE_g&s=19
Same happened in '97. There was no cut through during the election campaign ALTHOUGH the polls did start to narrow about 2 weeks out.
Do we think there's any chance now of this happening? Or has the tory brand been well and truly f*cked?
It may go the other way and their slide continues. Who wants to back a loser?
1. Lab
2. LibDem
3. Reform
4. Con
????????!!!!!!
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Daily Telegraph 31 May 2024
Remarkably prescient article - who else knew that Sunak would make a comeback? She did mean from D day commemoration didn't she?