Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.
Trumps solution when he takes office will be to ban women from voting.
Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.
Not sure how far he is going to get with women by reminding them again that he took away their federal abortion protections and handed it back to states who are often banning it altogether.
On that note, this is the piece of legislation the Republicans were trying to pass, tied to the funding bill - which is why the US is again on the brink of a government shutdown.
It’s a remarkable piece of blatant, and not quite so blatant ratfuckery.
https://newrepublic.com/article/186160/republican-war-women-extends-voting-rights … The SAVE Act is a proposed federal law, so, first off, it would put a future president (say, Trump) in charge of enforcing it, taking that power away from the states. Millions of voter registrations in any states the president decides are problematic could be removed until those voters “cure” their registrations, and state authorities would have no say in it.
And what will the law require citizens who want to vote do? Lacking a passport or other proof of citizenship with their married names, they must produce both a birth certificate (with the seal of the state where it was issued; no copies allowed) and a current form of identification—both with the exact same name on them. That could instantly disqualify about 90 percent of all married women without passports or other proof that matches their birth certificates or proof of a legal name change.
For women in that situation, they can still register to vote if they can prove that they went to court to change their name when they got married, but most women just start using their new married name without ever going through all those formalities (although a few states recognize marriage as a legal name change).
As a result, as the National Organization for Women details in a report on how Republican voter suppression efforts harm women:
Voter ID laws have a disproportionately negative effect on women. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, one third of all women have citizenship documents that do not identically match their current names primarily because of name changes at marriage. Roughly 90 percent of women who marry adopt their husband’s last name.
That means that roughly 90 percent of married female voters have a different name on their ID than the one on their birth certificate. An estimated 34 percent of women could be turned away from the polls unless they have precisely the right documents.
Just by coincidence, Republicans will suggest, at this moment in history millions of American women are seriously pissed off at the GOP...
The not quite so obvious bit is that it awards the President power over the running of elections - at a time when the Supreme Court has ruled the President has no liability for crimes committed in the course of official acts.
That's likely to affect older and married women, who I suspect will be more pro GOP than average.
Incidentally all those who want more Presidential legal liability perhaps should have been demanding Sleepy Joe be put on trial for this:
The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
For the small minority of PBers with an active interest in elections for their own sake . . .
Sample ballot for upcoming Ranked Choice Voting general election for Portland, Oregon city council (specifically for Multnoma County voting precinct 2805):
Re: the PDX RCV election, this is first for the new City Council, which replaces the former City Commission which was elected citywide. Thus a Brave New World for voters AND candidates in the CIty of Roses.
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.
If you are going to 'call out' propoganda on the right, and want to be consistent, then you should also identify propoganda on the left. A lot of posts on this website fall in this category.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Can some English people have other identities as well ? For example, Indian or Nigerian or Irish ?
Because if the English part of their identity is 'nebulous' while the other aspects of the identity are more 'concrete' isn't it a possibility that the other parts of their identity become dominant ?
Something which might not be conducive to a harmonious society.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
This is nonsense.
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
On thread - Jenrick's reached 63% now? I think he's reasonably the favourite under current circumstances but 63% seems too high to me. A lot still to happen between now and then.
I agree. It’s entirely possible the conference will change things quite significantly.
I suspect Jenrick makes the last two, but who joins him and how much of chance they have against him will likely be dictated by how the candidates do at conference.
I still don’t think it’s inconceivable we get Jenrick v Badenoch.
Highly unlikely, the right of the party does not have enough MPs to get to the last 2.
Jenrick and Tugendhat are also the best speakers of the final 4 so I expect both to get a boost after their conference speeches
@kaitlancollins Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.
Course she has. CNN will be friendly full tosses rather than anything probing.
What is your basis for this opinion? Extended analysis of previous debates, for example?
My belief, is that what you are saying, is what Trump & his fluffers (NOT saying you're one of 'em!) will be claiming, as his "reason" for chickening out.
Just like expenses, it appears that once you become an MP, your moral compass gets switched off, and the pursuit of money over and above your earned wage becomes paramount. Political donations are perfectly legitimate as long as they are declared, above board and used for campaigning/running the office and suchlike. Where it starts to stink is the sheer amount of freebies MPs seem to attract, no matter what party they represent. If the PM needs a clothing allowance for them and a partner, then fair enough, make it part of the package and showcase the best of British, but can a cabinet minister really not afford to buy their own clothes? Now the other freebies are bit more stinky and complicated. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. Footie tickets and Swifty tickets? Get to fuck, they should be buying their own. Things like Charity Ball tickets are maybe more acceptable, but it's complicated. Ed Davey taking cash to care for his kid? A tough one, but on balance, I don't like it. Farage off to the States to support an injured mate? Unacceptable. It's gone on for years, but it needs to be stricter and all the freebies stopped. Free Gear Keir and Vicky Sponge have done us all a favour by really highlighting it.
THh thing is, MPs and cabinet ministers are wildy underpaid compared to their peers in any other walk of life. All this caterwauling is just going to make it an even more unattractive profession for talented people to consider.
But they are not underpaid copmpared to the majority of the UK population - and they are supposd to be wanting the job out of a sense of public duty and service not to line their own pockets.
Now that is a poor argument when talking about nurses and teachers who are on fuck all but not when you are talking about the Prime Minister who is already on a few quid short of £167,000 a year.
This is another failing of our adoption of this idea of professional politicians - politics as a career rather than as service.
Indeed, if you are clever and want to make money go into banking or corporate and commercial law or become a surgeon or senior executive of a major company. Maybe afterwards if you want to do public service go into politics but don't expect it to make you super rich, it is an above average paid profession but not the route to riches
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.
If you are going to 'call out' propoganda on the right, and want to be consistent, then you should also identify propoganda on the left. A lot of posts on this website fall in this category.
There's a WORLD of difference, between being opinionated and (perhaps) seriously wrong-headed, and being a shill, either paid OR volunteer.
Or is their zero difference, in your view of what's "consistent"?
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
This is nonsense.
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Can some English people have other identities as well ? For example, Indian or Nigerian or Irish ?
Because if the English part of their identity is 'nebulous' while the other aspects of the identity are more 'concrete' isn't it a possibility that the other parts of their identity become dominant ?
Something which might not be conducive to a harmonious society.
All identities are nebulous. In your example though, those who have, or have parents who came from another country that they identify as that becomes more of a significant marker than the overall one, as that is so common as to be the default.
To take the examples of an Indian and Nigerian, both those countries have varied cultures and attitudes to their history and politics, in a way that's probably even wider apart than the UK or England. If someone was living there then the fact were 'Indian' or 'Nigerian' wouldn't be worth commenting on - intra-country differences would. Yet it clearly is an important part of your background if you come to another country.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
@kaitlancollins Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.
Course she has. CNN will be friendly full tosses rather than anything probing.
What is your basis for this opinion? Extended analysis of previous debates, for example?
My belief, is that what you are saying, is what Trump & his fluffers (NOT saying you're one of 'em!) will be claiming, as his "reason" for chickening out.
BUT we shall see . . .
It’s bizarre, if you criticise Harris in any way you need to qualify it by criticising trump.
I’ve said more than once I want her to win. Due to Trumps economic policies.
CNN have been somewhat friendly towards Harris. Both candidates prefer the media organs that are friendly to them.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.
The interesting thing Trump says is this bit: ...with powerful exceptions, like those that Ronald Reagan insisted on, for rape, incest and the life of the mother
In trying to carve out those exceptions, Trump is standing against the ultras on his own side (hence the appeal to Reagan).
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
They were innocent times. I’m sure it was Coca-Cola.
TBH by the time we started on the Black Russians we were somewhat tipsy so we could only hope it was sugar.
A few years earlier it was Pernod and Black or Jellybeans.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
Churchill backed Edward VIII in the abdication crisis, largely I suspect to annoy Baldwin whom he had come to dislike.
So any Shinner tendencies would have been feigned.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Interestingly Labour has never had a leader educated at Cambridge, the LDs have, Maclennan, Clegg and Cable and David Owen went to Cambridge and led the SDP but never Labour. The closest they got was Fitzwilliam College Cambridge educated Burnham who was runner up to Corbyn in 2015
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.
The other tell for the rest of us is that when faced with quips about being a Russian bot they never engage. Never. That’s clearly part of the instruction pamphlet. No attempt to demonstrate Britishness. No personal details either - no back story. In fact TomW strayed somewhat in even suggesting he was going to the gym.
Kind of ironic he’s the one asking us about what constitutes British identity.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
Watching A Very Royal Scandal, talking of NYC freebies They should have paid Andrew to play himself this guy is not remotely odious enough.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I find it hard to believe she flew Economy, as well. Her and her “friend” Sam Tarry. Which potentially puts the holiday in the £10k bracket
The Tories did far worse. But the Tories didn’t stand at conference lecterns raging about corrupt politicians and shouting “there’s one rule for them, one rule for the rest of us!!”
Also, who is leaking all this the day before the Labour Conference?
Someone - or some people - are trying to destroy Starmer’s govt from the inside
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
God's a microwave for people who make poor potato choices? I'm not sure this cult of yours will progress.
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Interestingly Labour has never had a leader educated at Cambridge, the LDs have, Maclennan, Clegg and Cable and David Owen went to Cambridge and led the SDP but never Labour. The closest they got was Fitzwilliam College Cambridge educated Burnham who was runner up to Corbyn in 2015
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I find it hard to believe she flew Economy, as well. Her and her “friend” Sam Tarry. Which potentially puts the holiday in the £10k bracket
The Tories did far worse. But the Tories didn’t stand at conference lecterns raging about corrupt politicians and shouting “there’s one rule for them, one rule for the rest of
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
Indeed. England can boast Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Richard III and James II.
Scotland can mention John, Mary, James I and James VII.
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
I am somebody who publicly stated on here that the Angela Rayner housing arrangements were a non story/thin gruel, I do conclude her visit to the Big Apple is a proper story.
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.
I checked Airbnb for luxe two bed midtown Manhattan apartments with all these gewgaws, and views on the 50th floor. At NYE you’d be paying around £1000-1500 per NIGHT
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.
Teflon Ange, after she sailed through the two houses stuff.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Is Starmer still taking advice from Blair/Mandelson or does he think he knows best?
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
It's their holier than thou attitude that always causes them problems.
I think they genuinely think 411 seats won was a sign of popularity.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
This is nonsense.
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
lol
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
My only real comment is that the expenses story has had big cut through among the sort of people who turned Battersea blue then red. Boris came up and the general vibe was that his donations weren't nearly as bad because he was elected on a good times vibe rather than a cleaning up politics one.
Starmer is not managing the new govt bounce well at all. Smoking in pub gardens was a ridiculous own goal, as was choosing the triple lock over WFP.
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
I'd happily ask Lord Alli if I could stay there for £250 a night.
Suspect I'd be told to eff off until I stuck a nought on the end of it.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Bloody funny
And as I shall keep saying every day until 29 October there is nothing to do until 30 October except point and laugh and dig out sleaze stories. And if the budget is the best budget theoretically possible if JM Keynes were the chancellor, people will hate it. But in fact it will be a misconceived heap of shit.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
I have watched the clip linked to above again, carefully. The interviewer at no point says anything remotely like @Gardenwalker ’s claim. He does not say there is no such thing as English identity. He does not say the word “racist” or anything like it.
Gardenwalker, could you explain yourself? Why are you making things up?
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
lol
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
Angela Rayner is the posh and middle class persons ideal view of the working class. They use her to burnish their pro worker credentials while reinforcing their worldview.. How can I be against the working class. I love Ange. She’s working class. She’s okay.
Working class people who don’t confirm to their world view, like Lee Anderson however….
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
This is nonsense.
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.
Until you've lived in Scotland, you have absolutely no idea what the state-sanctioned embrace of the national identity is. And this was true before the SNP took power. Scots are encouraged to embrace their national celebrations/festivals, language/dialect, and symbols/icons - a great deal of taxpayers' money is spent doing it. There's nothing equivalent for England. I suspect this is probably due to the long term plan to carve England up into regions rather than keep it as a single entity. Damaging social engineering by stupid, inadequate little people chasing their federalist dream.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.
I’ve just watched the Fayed documentary on iPlayer. Absolutely horrendous. Thank god we have #metoo and cancel culture today. If we’d had the same in the 1980s, many women would have been spared later rape, assault or harassment (and Princess Di would still be alive!).
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".
I’ve just watched the Fayed documentary on iPlayer. Absolutely horrendous. Thank god we have #metoo and cancel culture today. If we’d had the same in the 1980s, many women would have been spared later rape, assault or harassment (and Princess Di would still be alive!).
Seriously, is there a case for Sir Keir, Reeves and Rayner simply to resign? Drastic but it could be spun as the ultimate government relaunch and the Bidden-Harris handover cited as a legitimate 'game-changing' model. As things stand this clearly isn't working.
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”
This is nonsense.
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.
Until you've lived in Scotland, you have absolutely no idea what the state-sanctioned embrace of the national identity is. And this was true before the SNP took power. Scots are encouraged to embrace their national celebrations/festivals, language/dialect, and symbols/icons - a great deal of taxpayers' money is spent doing it. There's nothing equivalent for England. I suspect this is probably due to the long term plan to carve England up into regions rather than keep it as a single entity. Damaging social engineering by stupid, inadequate little people chasing their federalist dream.
It's more because it's seen as unnecessary I think - a reason both Scots and Welsh politicians, and the nationalists in particular, are so fiercely defensive on this stuff is a sign of weakness rather than strength. England is by far the largest member of the union and as such doesn't fear being subsumed into the wider whole.
And regional identity is often more important to some people than their national identity. It's not 'social engineering' - it's down to our history, culture and the fact England's large enough to have more variation and defined regional identities.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.
On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.
Got rid of the King.
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2
Churchill the closet Shinner?
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.
What about the line about “rebellious Scots”?
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid Victory bring
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
They've conceded a goal in the first minute. That's more how I'd put it.
I called this the other day (and alluded to it in the header.)
No 10 was flat-footed in explaining the details in a way that would have muted the criticism. Reports that Starmer has been given an entire corporate box by Arsenal, worth about £8,000 a game, for security reasons were inaccurate.
The prime minister owns season tickets for him and his son, which he continues to pay for. He has been able to take two seats in a box, moving around each game so he is never in the same place twice, a requirement of his security team. Starmer has already twice paid the difference between the value of his seats and those he has been given. The sums are “a few hundred pounds”.
More understandably, his team has not been able to brief about the security threat, which sources say is much higher than it was when Cameron or Sunak sat in the stands. This is because Islamist extremists are targeting Starmer and senior cabinet ministers over the government’s approach to the war in Gaza.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Bloody funny
And as I shall keep saying every day until 29 October there is nothing to do until 30 October except point and laugh and dig out sleaze stories. And if the budget is the best budget theoretically possible if JM Keynes were the chancellor, people will hate it. But in fact it will be a misconceived heap of shit.
If it's as bad as I fear I'll be going to join my friends in Aus or the US. One of my juniors is a postgrad and her marginal rate is almost 50% on less than £50k!
Seriously, is there a case for Sir Keir, Reeves and Rayner simply to resign? Drastic but it could be spun as the ultimate government relaunch and the Bidden-Harris handover cited as a legitimate 'game-changing' model. As things stand this clearly isn't working.
If they did we'd need a General Election. The Labour Party would be crushed and we would have the ultimate anti-corruption coalition of Jenrick and Farage.
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much more
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".
Tonight.
Thats what i said. Interestingly when people are losing arguments they always criticize punctuation. Human nature i guess.
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
lol
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
Comments
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.
I think he'll need to do better.
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Incidentally all those who want more Presidential legal liability perhaps should have been demanding Sleepy Joe be put on trial for this:
The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58604655
No shortage of 'collateral damage' by drone under St Barack of Obama either.
Surprise, surprise!
The first submarine for the French Navy, from 1863. The MN Plongeur, driven by compressed air.
5 minute video, from Drachinifel. It looks like the island planned for their new aircraft carrier due in about 2048, on its side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YQ3Mkay9sU
To commemorate the tenth anniversary of Staythorpe Power Station, in 2020.
This is nonsense.
Sample ballot for upcoming Ranked Choice Voting general election for Portland, Oregon city council (specifically for Multnoma County voting precinct 2805):
https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/5-1-2805-1-RCV-NON-EN.pdf
AND here is the ballot (same precinct) for the rest of the election, for federal, state and other local offices:
https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/80-1-2805-1-S-NON-EN.pdf
Re: the PDX RCV election, this is first for the new City Council, which replaces the former City Commission which was elected citywide. Thus a Brave New World for voters AND candidates in the CIty of Roses.
Because if the English part of their identity is 'nebulous' while the other aspects of the identity are more 'concrete' isn't it a possibility that the other parts of their identity become dominant ?
Something which might not be conducive to a harmonious society.
The problem is that Australia bat better, bowl better and field better. Other than that it’s highly competitive.
Perhaps England should prepare pitches where one day cricket matches can be played.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce81e3y92zyo
Jenrick and Tugendhat are also the best speakers of the final 4 so I expect both to get a boost after their conference speeches
My belief, is that what you are saying, is what Trump & his fluffers (NOT saying you're one of 'em!) will be claiming, as his "reason" for chickening out.
BUT we shall see . . .
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
Or is their zero difference, in your view of what's "consistent"?
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Got rid of the King.
To take the examples of an Indian and Nigerian, both those countries have varied cultures and attitudes to their history and politics, in a way that's probably even wider apart than the UK or England. If someone was living there then the fact were 'Indian' or 'Nigerian' wouldn't be worth commenting on - intra-country differences would. Yet it clearly is an important part of your background if you come to another country.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
I’ve said more than once I want her to win. Due to Trumps economic policies.
CNN have been somewhat friendly towards Harris. Both candidates prefer the media organs that are friendly to them.
Would you like rimming sugar?
Would you like rimming, sugar?
Two very different sentences.
In trying to carve out those exceptions, Trump is standing against the ultras on his own side (hence the appeal to Reagan).
TBH by the time we started on the Black Russians we were somewhat tipsy so we could only hope it was sugar.
A few years earlier it was Pernod and Black or Jellybeans.
So any Shinner tendencies would have been feigned.
Rather made me think of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w23oPQdnNH8&ab_channel=speedy6838
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
Kind of ironic he’s the one asking us about what constitutes British identity.
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
They should have paid Andrew to play himself this guy is not remotely odious enough.
The Tories did far worse. But the Tories didn’t stand at conference lecterns raging about corrupt politicians and shouting “there’s one rule for them, one rule for the rest of us!!”
Also, who is leaking all this the day before the Labour Conference?
Someone - or some people - are trying to destroy Starmer’s govt from the inside
Broke up in I think 2023.
Scotland can mention John, Mary, James I and James VII.
And both can boast of Edward VIII.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.
I think they genuinely think 411 seats won was a sign of popularity.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
Or perhaps, both.
Starmer is not managing the new govt bounce well at all. Smoking in pub gardens was a ridiculous own goal, as was choosing the triple lock over WFP.
Suspect I'd be told to eff off until I stuck a nought on the end of it.
And as I shall keep saying every day until 29 October there is nothing to do until 30 October except point and laugh and dig out sleaze stories. And if the budget is the best budget theoretically possible if JM Keynes were the chancellor, people will hate it. But in fact it will be a misconceived heap of shit.
Gardenwalker, could you explain yourself? Why are you making things up?
Working class people who don’t confirm to their world view, like Lee Anderson however….
https://x.com/sketchaganda/status/1837436113754972562?s=61
Still watching royal scandal. 2TK is prince Andrew.
And regional identity is often more important to some people than their national identity. It's not 'social engineering' - it's down to our history, culture and the fact England's large enough to have more variation and defined regional identities.
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
No 10 was flat-footed in explaining the details in a way that would have muted the criticism. Reports that Starmer has been given an entire corporate box by Arsenal, worth about £8,000 a game, for security reasons were inaccurate.
The prime minister owns season tickets for him and his son, which he continues to pay for. He has been able to take two seats in a box, moving around each game so he is never in the same place twice, a requirement of his security team. Starmer has already twice paid the difference between the value of his seats and those he has been given. The sums are “a few hundred pounds”.
More understandably, his team has not been able to brief about the security threat, which sources say is much higher than it was when Cameron or Sunak sat in the stands. This is because Islamist extremists are targeting Starmer and senior cabinet ministers over the government’s approach to the war in Gaza.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/a-masterclass-in-bad-management-sir-keir-starmers-rude-awakening-mgt9jxp68
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/19/angela-rayner-new-year-luxury-manhattan-flat-lord-alli/ (£££)
Add in a bit of fudge around airline flights and five days not a whole week, and now sharing with another MP, and suddenly the scandal is blurred.