Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
Indeed. Only from Lucky's extreme right-wing promontory does Clarkson seem in any way liberal.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
I have always found the Murdoch press (his article appeared in The Sun) and all of its outlets to have fairly opaque agendas that aren't easily discernible. One part could be condemning Meghan Markle, another part could be negotiating a book deal with her. I think its naive to assume the pieces don't fit together, just as its naive to wave an article like that through editorial/legal etc.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
Indeed. Only from Lucky's extreme right-wing promontory does Clarkson seem in any way liberal.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
Oh, and I'm the extreme right now am I? Gosh, I do hope you don't run out of adjectives.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
Why always a Saturday?
There is an Excel spreadsheet in Accra or where-the-fuck-ever that says hit this site on this day. There is no more sophistication than that.
Imagine how shit the British government's Russian language psy-ops on VK are and that's the equivalent of what we occasionally see on As sabt.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I think Clarkson is Cameroon Tory/Orange Book.
Nothing about him makes me think he might be anything different.
Clarkson isn't really politics. He's more a multi millionaire permanently cosplaying the 80s/90s.
Nothing wrong with that, and he's hardly the only person ever to be nostalgic about the past.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
Clarkson barring SKS from his pub is about as meaningful as me barring Scarlett Johansson from my bed.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
There is no open market for train drivers. It is a skilled job that requires training and the only people that can deliver the training are former train drivers.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
I never have any idea why people are so attracted to these celebrity owned businesses. Why do I want to queue for hours for an overpriced novelty farm shop when I can go to my local one that supplies extremely high quality produce at a fraction of the price and no mega queue, or queue stand outside a pub for most of Friday night for a pint of lager when I can go to my local.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
And who the feck would want to spend their money in a boozer run by that arsehole Clarkson?
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
11 posts in 18 minutes. At that rate he'd have got to 100k posts by the end of the year.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
Agree with both of you.
Especially as DWP have made a huge mess of dealing with the income from the state pension as far as income tax is concerned. No P60 from them. And to make it worse, totally confusing instructions on how to work out the notional income for the tax return - which, in contrast to all other taxed income (except for some special cases), is not what one actually receives in the year from 6 April. HMRC have ended up basically telling people to have a stab but we'll change it anyway for you: which leaves open the question, how can one be sure it is correct|?
The mess left by the Tories at HMRC, and their messing about with basic state pension versus income tax allowance, is going to hit the fan in the current crop of income taxt returns, with many new OAP tax returners. For which one only has two months to complete them, if one has not got an online return facility - and the latter have to be applied for and have all sorts of hiccups as Mrs C is currently discovering.
And add also the change under the Tories to unlimited penalties, rather than something pro rata with the actual shortfall ...
Anyway, all this also makes accurate means testing very difficult if one is relying on HMRC data. Either that or lots of forms etc. etc. which cost money to administer.
Trump: Barack Hussein Obama. He was nasty to me. Michelle was nasty. They are all nasty. I was surprised, I was sort of nice to him.. it didn’t matter.. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1827135454979747903
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
Similar to Philip Schofield maybe, the power differential?
RFK Jr said that people in politics who deny climate change (like Trump) are “contemptible human beings,” and should be prosecuted at The Hague and put in prison as war criminals. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1827083096015172097
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
Similar to Philip Schofield maybe, the power differential?
Schofield was far more dodgy than what's reported here. As reported its was two adults who work together, went out drinking, dirty texts to one another and that was it. His wife obviously has every right to sack him, but as I say seems a low bar given the well known shenanigans of the "talent" in the media world. Either the BBC have overreacted or there is a bit more to it e.g. Vernon Kay is going to have to go as well, dirty texts every day for 4 months to 4 or 5 different women.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
I do condemn it. I am explicit in saying I want to see the Governmemt not putting a single penny of taxpayers money into subsidising the rails. Let the train drivers wages come entirely from train passengers ticket fares.
The drivers are providing a service to their passengers. The passengers are demanding a service from their driver. It should be between them and their intermediaries how much that service is worth and every penny of a pay rise should be put into rail fares.
If passengers are prepared to pay more for the service, then they clearly value the drivers services enough that they're worth it. If they're not and choose alternative transport instead like driving themselves rather than getting a train driver to drive them on their behalf, then they're not and the train drivers can lose their jobs unless prices come down.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
On the contrary I drink plenty as do most of my friends, we just do it away from a pub. If it was not for the fact my father insists on going to the pub for his sunday lunchtime I would quite happily never set foot in a pub ever again, same goes for most of the people I know.
Whats the attraction of a pub these days...over priced drinks, music that often is so loud its impossible to talk. Nah much better to meet up round someone elses house and play board games while chatting and drinking and probably costs you less than the price of two pints.
Just in from Nielsen: The final night of the DNC drew an average of 26.2 million viewers across 15 networks -- roughly 6 million more than the three nights prior.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
On the contrary I drink plenty as do most of my friends, we just do it away from a pub. If it was not for the fact my father insists on going to the pub for his sunday lunchtime I would quite happily never set foot in a pub ever again, same goes for most of the people I know.
Whats the attraction of a pub these days...over priced drinks, music that often is so loud its impossible to talk. Nah much better to meet up round someone elses house and play board games while chatting and drinking and probably costs you less than the price of two pints.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
Indeed. Only from Lucky's extreme right-wing promontory does Clarkson seem in any way liberal.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
Oh, and I'm the extreme right now am I? Gosh, I do hope you don't run out of adjectives.
Yes, that was unfair. You're more the eccentric right.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
On the contrary I drink plenty as do most of my friends, we just do it away from a pub. If it was not for the fact my father insists on going to the pub for his sunday lunchtime I would quite happily never set foot in a pub ever again, same goes for most of the people I know.
Whats the attraction of a pub these days...over priced drinks, music that often is so loud its impossible to talk. Nah much better to meet up round someone elses house and play board games while chatting and drinking and probably costs you less than the price of two pints.
Sounds like pubs round your way are a bit shit.
Grew out of bothering with pubs in my early thirties when I realised the only thing I got was a lighter wallet and four hours of boredom and the pleasure of dealing with drunken fuckwits
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
On the contrary I drink plenty as do most of my friends, we just do it away from a pub. If it was not for the fact my father insists on going to the pub for his sunday lunchtime I would quite happily never set foot in a pub ever again, same goes for most of the people I know.
Whats the attraction of a pub these days...over priced drinks, music that often is so loud its impossible to talk. Nah much better to meet up round someone elses house and play board games while chatting and drinking and probably costs you less than the price of two pints.
Sounds like pubs round your way are a bit shit.
Grew out of bothering with pubs in my early thirties when I realised the only thing I got was a lighter wallet and four hours of boredom and the pleasure of dealing with drunken fuckwits
RFK Jr. takes the stage and declares that the Democratic Party now represents the OPPOSITE of democracy.
"As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big ag, and big money. When it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent."
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
There is no open market for train drivers. It is a skilled job that requires training and the only people that can deliver the training are former train drivers.
Indeed, though every single penny of a train drivers wages should be paid by the drivers passengers (including the firms paying for cargo to be moved for cargo trains).
If the passengers are willing to pay more, that's their choice.
The general taxpayer should not be making up the difference.
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
It's no different from how we elect a prime minister.
It's very different for at least four reasons.
Firstly, we don't pretend we elect a Prime Minister. Though PMs may try to pretend otherwise, they, as opposed to their party or manifesto, don't have a direct mandate from the people, only an indirect one, which disappears if people lose confidence in them.
Secondly, since the Cameron reforms, our MPs, unlike members of the Electoral College, are allocated reasonably strictly by population (with the exception of the indefensible Western Isles). Whereas, in the Electoral College, you have the idiotic system that gives far more weight to small states, Thus Wyoming has about three times as much influence as it should given its population, while Pennsylvania, Colorado or Florida have significantly less.
Thirdly, the MPs and Monarch who choose the Prime Minister engage with him on a regular basis and are always very familiar with him before he gets the top job. They are a much more informed selectorate than the Electoral College, which generally consists of fourth-rate hacks with time on their hands - a bit like our House of Lords.
Fourthly, in most states implicity, and in many implicity, members of the Electoral College have no discretion as to whom to vote for, unlike MPs and Party Members, who can vote against an underperforming PM. They are simply automatons.
So our system is very different, and though it has its quirks, I would say it is considerably better, maybe because it wasn't designed as a fudge to keep slavery legal.
Fifthly, we don’t lump constituencies together. Each is of equal size. The US system lumps all of California or Texas into a winner-takes-all arrangement. It would be like giving every Commons seat in Scotland to Labour.
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
It's no different from how we elect a prime minister.
It's very different for at least four reasons.
Firstly, we don't pretend we elect a Prime Minister. Though PMs may try to pretend otherwise, they, as opposed to their party or manifesto, don't have a direct mandate from the people, only an indirect one, which disappears if people lose confidence in them.
Secondly, since the Cameron reforms, our MPs, unlike members of the Electoral College, are allocated reasonably strictly by population (with the exception of the indefensible Western Isles). Whereas, in the Electoral College, you have the idiotic system that gives far more weight to small states, Thus Wyoming has about three times as much influence as it should given its population, while Pennsylvania, Colorado or Florida have significantly less.
Thirdly, the MPs and Monarch who choose the Prime Minister engage with him on a regular basis and are always very familiar with him before he gets the top job. They are a much more informed selectorate than the Electoral College, which generally consists of fourth-rate hacks with time on their hands - a bit like our House of Lords.
Fourthly, in most states implicity, and in many implicity, members of the Electoral College have no discretion as to whom to vote for, unlike MPs and Party Members, who can vote against an underperforming PM. They are simply automatons.
So our system is very different, and though it has its quirks, I would say it is considerably better, maybe because it wasn't designed as a fudge to keep slavery legal.
Fifthly, we don’t lump constituencies together. Each is of equal size. The US system lumps all of California or Texas into a winner-takes-all arrangement. It would be like giving every Commons seat in Scotland to Labour.
Or in 2005 giving every English seat to the Conservatives.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I like him. I think he would fit in well around here. A bit like Leon but with a more calibrated trip switch. He is both a showman and also a man with strong independent opinions. He knows how to make use of the latter to promote the former. But even though I diagreed with him on Brexit, I think his basic values and beliefs are sound. He also has that fairly rare quality of being able to recognise his own failings.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
Clarkson barring SKS from his pub is about as meaningful as me barring Scarlett Johansson from my bed.
If Ms Johansson is reading this, I know it must be a shock to be “cancelled” like this. Let me say you will always be welcome in my bed.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
There is no open market for train drivers. It is a skilled job that requires training and the only people that can deliver the training are former train drivers.
Indeed, though every single penny of a train drivers wages should be paid by the drivers passengers (including the firms paying for cargo to be moved for cargo trains).
If the passengers are willing to pay more, that's their choice.
The general taxpayer should not be making up the difference.
sorry that's bollocks, the general taxpayer derives value from the existence of a railway network even if they aren't direct users
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
Indeed. Only from Lucky's extreme right-wing promontory does Clarkson seem in any way liberal.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
Oh, and I'm the extreme right now am I? Gosh, I do hope you don't run out of adjectives.
Could be worse. Could be "radical-". I'd wait until "far-", to be honest.
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about how difficult it is to measure political concepts:
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
I can't imagine barring SKS would go down too well in the Cotswolds. Seems a very poor marketing move. The downside strikes me as far greater thanthe upside.
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
It's just conceivable that SKS has better things to do with his time than to queue for two hours to get into a bar.
Clarkson barring SKS from his pub is about as meaningful as me barring Scarlett Johansson from my bed.
If Ms Johansson is reading this, I know it must be a shock to be “cancelled” like this. Let me say you will always be welcome in my bed.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
There is no open market for train drivers. It is a skilled job that requires training and the only people that can deliver the training are former train drivers.
Indeed, though every single penny of a train drivers wages should be paid by the drivers passengers (including the firms paying for cargo to be moved for cargo trains).
If the passengers are willing to pay more, that's their choice.
The general taxpayer should not be making up the difference.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
The curious thing is that Jenas says that the messages were sent to consenting adults, but there was a complaint made against him. If there was a complaint that rather indicates that there was a lack of consent.
Just in from Nielsen: The final night of the DNC drew an average of 26.2 million viewers across 15 networks -- roughly 6 million more than the three nights prior.
Interesting stats on Reform voters. In general they believe strongly in hang'em, flog'em and lock them up. But when it comes to burning asylum seekers alive it's Starmer's Orwellian Britain that presumes to crack down on common sense.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
The curious thing is that Jenas says that the messages were sent to consenting adults, but there was a complaint made against him. If there was a complaint that rather indicates that there was a lack of consent.
It can be both i.e. it started with both up for it, then regret and not wanting for it to continue and Jenas carrying it on and it becoming a sex pest.
Rumours abound that since the new DJT and RFK romance has struck up JD Vance is reduced to sleeping on the couch. Whether JD Vance is actually responsible for this rumour is unclear.
One of the best things about this test match imo? The number of 3s that are being taken. Makes play a lot more exciting.
England are going to lose this....
The fact that their bowling attack looks so utterly toothless in English conditions with a Dukes ball does not bode well for future foreign trips.
Ok, I am claiming that one.
Obviously I was joking about this match, but yes, absolutely. Woakes is no good away from home and has lost 5-6 mph of pace, I am not sure about Atkinson, Potts isn't good enough and Wood can only bowl 4 at a time and breaks down injured regularly. Not sure we will ever see Archer again at Test level. No left arm seam. So we are back to 4 medium-fast right arm bowlers that rely on English conditions, which will get us nowhere in somewhere like Australia.
Interesting stats on Reform voters. In general they believe strongly in hang'em, flog'em and lock them up. But when it comes to burning asylum seekers alive it's Starmer's Orwellian Britain that presumes to crack down on common sense.
One of the best things about this test match imo? The number of 3s that are being taken. Makes play a lot more exciting.
England are going to lose this....
The fact that their bowling attack looks so utterly toothless in English conditions with a Dukes ball does not bode well for future foreign trips.
Ok, I am claiming that one.
Obviously I was joking about this match, but yes, absolutely. Woakes is no good away from home and has lost 5-6 mph of pace, I am not sure about Atkinson, Potts isn't good enough and Wood can only bowl 4 at a time and breaks down injured regularly. Not sure we will ever see Archer again at Test level. No left arm seam. So we are back to 4 medium-fast right arm bowlers that rely on English conditions, which will get us nowhere in somewhere like Australia.
Potts (who in fairness has just taken another wicket) was an odd choice for this match. Surely there must be some fast, ideally left handed, young bowler out there worth a look?
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I like him. I think he would fit in well around here. A bit like Leon but with a more calibrated trip switch. He is both a showman and also a man with strong independent opinions. He knows how to make use of the latter to promote the former. But even though I diagreed with him on Brexit, I think his basic values and beliefs are sound. He also has that fairly rare quality of being able to recognise his own failings.
Clarkson is an interesting chap - with more nuanced opinions than he's given credit for. Probably because it's his dumbed down Sun column rather than the more thoughtful Times stuff that makes news. Occasionally his desire to cause controversy gets him into trouble and he says something vile. One problem is that in the past he's found it much more lucrative to behave like a bit of a berk and go for the cheap gag.
'Barring' Starmer smacks of a slightly unimaginative plea for attention given it's utterly meaningless. Purely by virtue of having only just become PM Starmer is well down the list of those responsible for the decline of British farming. Jeremy's old mate Cameron would be higher.
Secondly, among potential Labour leaders Starmer is probably more attuned to rural concerns than most would be given he grew up in semi-rural Surrey and worked on a farm. Not saying he'd be good for farmers or do enough but is probably more sympathetic than those who are dyed-in-the wool city dwellers - i.e. many Labour MPs.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
The curious thing is that Jenas says that the messages were sent to consenting adults, but there was a complaint made against him. If there was a complaint that rather indicates that there was a lack of consent.
It can be both i.e. it started with both up for it, then regret and not wanting for it to continue and Jenas carrying it on and it becoming a sex pest.
I took his 'consenting adults' phrase to mean 'not grooming'. As for the Beeb I'd imagine that after Huw and Strictly they would not be inclined to leniency.
One of the best things about this test match imo? The number of 3s that are being taken. Makes play a lot more exciting.
England are going to lose this....
The fact that their bowling attack looks so utterly toothless in English conditions with a Dukes ball does not bode well for future foreign trips.
Ok, I am claiming that one.
Obviously I was joking about this match, but yes, absolutely. Woakes is no good away from home and has lost 5-6 mph of pace, I am not sure about Atkinson, Potts isn't good enough and Wood can only bowl 4 at a time and breaks down injured regularly. Not sure we will ever see Archer again at Test level. No left arm seam. So we are back to 4 medium-fast right arm bowlers that rely on English conditions, which will get us nowhere in somewhere like Australia.
Potts (who in fairness has just taken another wicket) was an odd choice for this match. Surely there must be some fast, ideally left handed, young bowler out there worth a look?
Josh Hull did OK for the Lions, but he’s not done so much against Glos (and I’m hoping it stays that way).
Similarly Zaman Akhtar was great at Worcs but looked pretty toothless at Bristol.
I cannot understand why they didn’t at least call Ed Barnard into the squad.
One of the best things about this test match imo? The number of 3s that are being taken. Makes play a lot more exciting.
England are going to lose this....
The fact that their bowling attack looks so utterly toothless in English conditions with a Dukes ball does not bode well for future foreign trips.
Ok, I am claiming that one.
Obviously I was joking about this match, but yes, absolutely. Woakes is no good away from home and has lost 5-6 mph of pace, I am not sure about Atkinson, Potts isn't good enough and Wood can only bowl 4 at a time and breaks down injured regularly. Not sure we will ever see Archer again at Test level. No left arm seam. So we are back to 4 medium-fast right arm bowlers that rely on English conditions, which will get us nowhere in somewhere like Australia.
Potts (who in fairness has just taken another wicket) was an odd choice for this match. Surely there must be some fast, ideally left handed, young bowler out there worth a look?
Having dropped Anderson ostensibly to bring on the next generation, it's very odd to still be picking Woakes given his struggles on tour.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
That's the least bad option then.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
The Government agreeing (why is it even the Government's business I ask again) to pay train drivers a vast amount more than their work/skill-set should cost on the open market (I feel so sorry for poor bus drivers) to avoid strike action is the worst socialist garbage and it should be condemned by any libertarian.
I do condemn it. I am explicit in saying I want to see the Governmemt not putting a single penny of taxpayers money into subsidising the rails. Let the train drivers wages come entirely from train passengers ticket fares.
The drivers are providing a service to their passengers. The passengers are demanding a service from their driver. It should be between them and their intermediaries how much that service is worth and every penny of a pay rise should be put into rail fares.
If passengers are prepared to pay more for the service, then they clearly value the drivers services enough that they're worth it. If they're not and choose alternative transport instead like driving themselves rather than getting a train driver to drive them on their behalf, then they're not and the train drivers can lose their jobs unless prices come down.
It should have nothing to do with the taxpayers.
However no party advocates this.
The Conservatives in the 1990s did - the franchising regime was put in place to wean the sector off subsidies by 2005, and indeed had some success in that direction, until Hatifeld crash in 2000, which was (probably wrongly) blamed on low investment.
Ever since, subsidies have been lavished on the sector by all parties.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
The curious thing is that Jenas says that the messages were sent to consenting adults, but there was a complaint made against him. If there was a complaint that rather indicates that there was a lack of consent.
How does someone consent (or not) to receiving specific messages before the content therein is known to them?
Did the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) really unanimously adopt the position that Kamala Harris is ineligible to be President based on... the Dred Scott decision?! https://x.com/ASFleischman/status/1827036555854409815
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I like him. I think he would fit in well around here. A bit like Leon but with a more calibrated trip switch. He is both a showman and also a man with strong independent opinions. He knows how to make use of the latter to promote the former. But even though I diagreed with him on Brexit, I think his basic values and beliefs are sound. He also has that fairly rare quality of being able to recognise his own failings.
Clarkson is an interesting chap
I have never seen a full episode of TG or any of his other shit but I did once see him freely admit that he doesn’t know any BMW chassis codes so fuck him.
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
It does depend on exactly what was said, but based on the little information being given I would expect to be sacked for that.
The curious thing is that Jenas says that the messages were sent to consenting adults, but there was a complaint made against him. If there was a complaint that rather indicates that there was a lack of consent.
How does someone consent (or not) to receiving specific messages before the content therein is known to them?
By making it clear that such pictures are welcome. So you might specifically invite them or you might send something yourself that seems to invite something in kind.
Why anybody with any kind of brain ever thinks that sending such pictures is a good idea is an entirely different question.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
IIRC the state pension, by itself has a value of about £250k
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
IIRC the state pension, by itself has a value of about £250k
Fidelity came up with £223k equivalent via an annuity. But its not included in wealth as its not guaranteed or ring fenced but a benefit at the whim of the govt....
German police say they have arrested a 15-year-old in connection with a knife attack in the western German city of Solingen
Not the suspect but someone who was in contact with him.
I see the German authorities are doing their usual dance. We aren't going to tell you who the suspect is, we won't release any images so the public can help us find them, but don't speculate on social media.
Comments
I think SKS is wrong about plenty, but I'd give him a) my business and b) the time of day. Hell, I'd give Corbyn the time of day. Are there any politicians I wouldn't interact with? Probably only Gerry Adams and his associates. Actual mouthpieces for murderers and gangsters.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13773239/BORIS-JOHNSON-Starmer-Orwell-1984-ill.html
Imagine how shit the British government's Russian language psy-ops on VK are and that's the equivalent of what we occasionally see on As sabt.
Union members are actually going to work for a living and providing services people need.
Those just sat at home demanding more welfare are not.
Your party may actually be worth voting for again when it starts to care, as it used to, about people in the private sector going to work and not merely those who sit on welfare taking from those who work - both public and private.
He's more a multi millionaire permanently cosplaying the 80s/90s.
Nothing wrong with that, and he's hardly the only person ever to be nostalgic about the past.
Lloyd George would perhaps be another example.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9enw5xp2qo
There is either a lot more to this story or the BBC will be sacking people every other week. Two people flirting via text, no unsolicited dick pics or paying 17 year old drug addicts for dirty photos, seems a very low bar to getting sacked.
Especially as DWP have made a huge mess of dealing with the income from the state pension as far as income tax is concerned. No P60 from them. And to make it worse, totally confusing instructions on how to work out the notional income for the tax return - which, in contrast to all other taxed income (except for some special cases), is not what one actually receives in the year from 6 April. HMRC have ended up basically telling people to have a stab but we'll change it anyway for you: which leaves open the question, how can one be sure it is correct|?
The mess left by the Tories at HMRC, and their messing about with basic state pension versus income tax allowance, is going to hit the fan in the current crop of income taxt returns, with many new OAP tax returners. For which one only has two months to complete them, if one has not got an online return facility - and the latter have to be applied for and have all sorts of hiccups as Mrs C is currently discovering.
And add also the change under the Tories to unlimited penalties, rather than something pro rata with the actual shortfall ...
Anyway, all this also makes accurate means testing very difficult if one is relying on HMRC data. Either that or lots of forms etc. etc. which cost money to administer.
Trump: Barack Hussein Obama. He was nasty to me. Michelle was nasty. They are all nasty. I was surprised, I was sort of nice to him.. it didn’t matter..
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1827135454979747903
RFK Jr said that people in politics who deny climate change (like Trump) are “contemptible human beings,” and should be prosecuted at The Hague and put in prison as war criminals.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1827083096015172097
As he’s been telling anyone who will listen..
RFK Jr: "President Biden mocked Vladimir Putin's 88 percent landslide in the Russian elections ... "
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1827057768387264712
The drivers are providing a service to their passengers. The passengers are demanding a service from their driver. It should be between them and their intermediaries how much that service is worth and every penny of a pay rise should be put into rail fares.
If passengers are prepared to pay more for the service, then they clearly value the drivers services enough that they're worth it. If they're not and choose alternative transport instead like driving themselves rather than getting a train driver to drive them on their behalf, then they're not and the train drivers can lose their jobs unless prices come down.
It should have nothing to do with the taxpayers.
However no party advocates this.
Whats the attraction of a pub these days...over priced drinks, music that often is so loud its impossible to talk. Nah much better to meet up round someone elses house and play board games while chatting and drinking and probably costs you less than the price of two pints.
Just in from Nielsen: The final night of the DNC drew an average of 26.2 million viewers across 15 networks -- roughly 6 million more than the three nights prior.
Viewership surged during Kamala Harris' speech with 28.9 million viewers tuning in from 10:31pm to 11:11pm ET.
https://x.com/EWagmeister/status/1827094352746951141
You're more the eccentric right.
If the passengers are willing to pay more, that's their choice.
The general taxpayer should not be making up the difference.
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about how difficult it is to measure political concepts:
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/07/classification/
RFK Jr. says Trump has asked to enlist him in his administration
https://x.com/samstein/status/1827060898508189854
Johnson of course is on the bandwagon.
But it's unlikely that any offer Trump might make would be credible anyway.
The Trump-Kennedy Pact occurs on the 85th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1827082100152946980
So vee it. They are definitely a Nasty duo.
Ok, I am claiming that one.
Edit:- Checks weather. Maybe not.
'Barring' Starmer smacks of a slightly unimaginative plea for attention given it's utterly meaningless. Purely by virtue of having only just become PM Starmer is well down the list of those responsible for the decline of British farming. Jeremy's old mate Cameron would be higher.
Secondly, among potential Labour leaders Starmer is probably more attuned to rural concerns than most would be given he grew up in semi-rural Surrey and worked on a farm. Not saying he'd be good for farmers or do enough but is probably more sympathetic than those who are dyed-in-the wool city dwellers - i.e. many Labour MPs.
Similarly Zaman Akhtar was great at Worcs but looked pretty toothless at Bristol.
I cannot understand why they didn’t at least call Ed Barnard into the squad.
If England try to thrash quick runs on this pitch, you would definitely favour Sri Lanka.
Ever since, subsidies have been lavished on the sector by all parties.
Sri Lanka 6.4
Draw 210
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-sri-lanka-betting-33497872
https://x.com/ASFleischman/status/1827036555854409815
Why anybody with any kind of brain ever thinks that sending such pictures is a good idea is an entirely different question.
https://www.fidelity.co.uk/markets-insights/personal-finance/personal-finance/the-287560-cost-of-matching-the-state-pension/
Fidelity came up with £223k equivalent via an annuity. But its not included in wealth as its not guaranteed or ring fenced but a benefit at the whim of the govt....
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/articles/cx2ep48pxw7o
Just as they started to get the hang of the blitz defence.
hmm how do I embed twitter?
Overburdens the Vanilla server or something.
...“US President Lynch King” is a name you’d expect for an X-Men antagonist. ..
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3d4v43gjo
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1827342100372795741
https://x.com/mtwit75/status/1801283957171912836
- Who burned the synagogue?
- A man