13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
The National Curriculum was introduced by Mrs Thatchers government in order to stamp out diversity of practice, and to enforce teaching of what that government thought important in terms of history and culture.
The boot is on the other foot now, and Labour get to promote what they think matters in terms of culture and history. Wasn't it the Jesuits who said "give me the boy before the age of 7, and I will give you the man"
That's the odd thing. iirc the problem Ken Baker was ostensibly trying to solve was children changing schools and being stymied because new and old schools were studying different Shakespeare plays for A-level, say.
But somewhere along the line the process was hijacked by politicians (or maybe The Blob) which led to the National Curriculum, when what the original problem needed was a national syllabus for each subject, across the different exam boards.
Although I've not read Ken Baker's memoirs so take this with a pinch of salt. In any case, increasingly the National Curriculum seeks to dictate each syllabus.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
It quite surprising that Farage, alongside other well-known-in-America British commentators on the child abuse issue such as Konstantin Kisin and JK Rowling, haven’t been all over Twitter in the last 48 hours saying they want nothing to do with “Tommy” and that he belongs in prison.
“Tommy” appears to have something of an American fan club, his supporters have done an apparently good job of getting his name known over there as someone who stands up for free speech, as opposed to someone who has nearly caused a number of trials to be abandoned and is in prison for disobeying a court order to stop libelling people.
When the Civil Disobedience that Musk and Robinson clearly want to reoccur occurs, Farage (as before with his deliberate and calculted intervention) and now Badenoch with her fatal error of judgement in going against not only her recently departed Government policy, which Labout is only enacting) will be tainted with the fact that they are complicit in stoking up the tension.
If it turns in to a "civil war" of kind on the streets of our Towns and Cities and our Properties; Cultures , Emergency Services and actual fabric of our democracy is put under threat, where does she think (I discount Farage as he is 100% a political opportunist that is his sole policy) that is going to leave her in the eyes of the vast majority of Public Opinion.
THE UK at WAR, and this will be a war, have absolutly no doubt has an inbuilt tendency to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government - whether they are popular or NOT....All she will do is to turn the Tory Party in to Reform / Fascist Light!
The moderate One Nation wing of the Tory Party will 100% no doubt split and seek to take her and her zealots down!
The Mail / Telegraph / Express will revert to type and support the Fascists and we are potentially looking at this Country being targetted and attacked as never before from MAGA / MUSK and trojan horses and Traitors within....
Starmer showed real leadership and balls in August and can do so again.
His first move should be to speak to the Germans and French - equally threatened by Musk and to formulate a plan to neuter him!
The way to neuter Musk is to be a competent government and unfortunately this government is falling a long way short
Your comment on the Telegraph is particularly inept, in view of their headline warning to Farage this morning of not associating with Tommy Robinson as previously referred to
Kemi has already taken on Farage and will distance herself from the hard right
Better government is always to be desired, but does it solve the world's Musk problem? Unfortunately, I rather doubt it. The old adage about a lie spreading worldwide before the truth has got its boots on applies here, except sped up a thousandfold by the magic of the internet.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
It quite surprising that Farage, alongside other well-known-in-America British commentators on the child abuse issue such as Konstantin Kisin and JK Rowling, haven’t been all over Twitter in the last 48 hours saying they want nothing to do with “Tommy” and that he belongs in prison.
“Tommy” appears to have something of an American fan club, his supporters have done an apparently good job of getting his name known over there as someone who stands up for free speech, as opposed to someone who has nearly caused a number of trials to be abandoned and is in prison for disobeying a court order to stop libelling people.
When the Civil Disobedience that Musk and Robinson clearly want to reoccur occurs, Farage (as before with his deliberate and calculted intervention) and now Badenoch with her fatal error of judgement in going against not only her recently departed Government policy, which Labout is only enacting) will be tainted with the fact that they are complicit in stoking up the tension.
If it turns in to a "civil war" of kind on the streets of our Towns and Cities and our Properties; Cultures , Emergency Services and actual fabric of our democracy is put under threat, where does she think (I discount Farage as he is 100% a political opportunist that is his sole policy) that is going to leave her in the eyes of the vast majority of Public Opinion.
THE UK at WAR, and this will be a war, have absolutly no doubt has an inbuilt tendency to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government - whether they are popular or NOT....All she will do is to turn the Tory Party in to Reform / Fascist Light!
The moderate One Nation wing of the Tory Party will 100% no doubt split and seek to take her and her zealots down!
The Mail / Telegraph / Express will revert to type and support the Fascists and we are potentially looking at this Country being targetted and attacked as never before from MAGA / MUSK and trojan horses and Traitors within....
Starmer showed real leadership and balls in August and can do so again.
His first move should be to speak to the Germans and French - equally threatened by Musk and to formulate a plan to neuter him!
The way to neuter Musk is to be a competent government and unfortunately this government is falling a long way short
(Snip)
That would help, but Musky Baby is perfectly willing to lie or dissemble to achieve what he wants - as we see with his ramping of Tommy Robinson. Virtually every time I go on the 'For You' tab on Twitter now, I get the latest 'musings' from Musk or Trump at, or near, the top. There seems to be very little 'truth' or 'fact' involved.
His usage of Twix in this manner is hurting Britain. Sadly, some so-called patriots on here seem to quite like the country being hurt - as long as the 'right' people are targeted.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
The last government seemed to want to commit ritual suicide, and the whole party was falling apart - becoming both ungovernable and unethical. Worse, they seemed to have no idea about what being a Conservative actually meant.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing for the last 2 years.
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
It wouldn't be surprised if Musk continues to pick out individual MPs he hates some Thomas Mair character might act on it. It has happened before. This is one of the reasons I believe Badenoch is unwise to jump onto every passing Musk bandwagon. How long before she starts demanding to "free the Yaxley-Lennon one"?
Even on here, as I have previously noted, people I thought of as fairly sober but solidly right wrong posters, those who now go on every single day about how crap Labour are in every tiniest respect, jumped in very willingly during the riots with two tier Keir and more than that direct echoing of the lies of actual neo-Nazis to politically point score. After the first 5 weeks of going on about how crap Labour were in every tiniest respect before they'd actually done anything.
Now PB Tories are a rump of what they once were, but as a grouping most of them now mirror the Corbynites - their hatred of Labour is so blind, so total, that they deserve to be on Prevent's Brownshirt watch - not active neo-Nazis or anything like today but, come the brownshirt revolution, quite susceptible to falling into line.
So, perhaps with these analytics, Musk is right and Farage is wrong -the basic rump right are already so far down the rabbit hole that his message will hit home.
Terrible though Muslim bombers and this generation of care home abusers are, the Momentum of Labour haters led by Republican expulsionists is the clearest, most present danger to ripping asunder the fabric of British society and to my own and my family's life because they seek to become once more the establishment. They seek damage in a way that no dodgy Labour tax rise can hope to replicate.
Yes, the greatest threat to British society now is not Muslim suicide bombers but PB Tories.
I try not to be a Tory hater, I have little trick with the Fatchtarati, and I am massively saddened to come to the point where I'm concluding this.
That's a bizarre view to take - the democratic Opposition is the problem.
That is, by the way, exactly how the MAGA crowd get to "We must nullify elections to protect Democracy".
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
And this matters.
So what this person is saying is that the first flight to Rwanda will take off in 770 years' time?
Well, that timeframe seems optimistic to me. But you never know.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
Hence the date. It will be published and buried amid the noise. Straight out of Yes Minister.
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas! Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent, That he himself felt only “like a youth Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
It wouldn't be surprised if Musk continues to pick out individual MPs he hates some Thomas Mair character might act on it. It has happened before. This is one of the reasons I believe Badenoch is unwise to jump onto every passing Musk bandwagon. How long before she starts demanding to "free the Yaxley-Lennon one"?
Even on here, as I have previously noted, people I thought of as fairly sober but solidly right wrong posters, those who now go on every single day about how crap Labour are in every tiniest respect, jumped in very willingly during the riots with two tier Keir and more than that direct echoing of the lies of actual neo-Nazis to politically point score. After the first 5 weeks of going on about how crap Labour were in every tiniest respect before they'd actually done anything.
Now PB Tories are a rump of what they once were, but as a grouping most of them now mirror the Corbynites - their hatred of Labour is so blind, so total, that they deserve to be on Prevent's Brownshirt watch - not active neo-Nazis or anything like today but, come the brownshirt revolution, quite susceptible to falling into line.
So, perhaps with these analytics, Musk is right and Farage is wrong -the basic rump right are already so far down the rabbit hole that his message will hit home.
Terrible though Muslim bombers and this generation of care home abusers are, the Momentum of Labour haters led by Republican expulsionists is the clearest, most present danger to ripping asunder the fabric of British society and to my own and my family's life because they seek to become once more the establishment. They seek damage in a way that no dodgy Labour tax rise can hope to replicate.
Yes, the greatest threat to British society now is not Muslim suicide bombers but PB Tories.
I try not to be a Tory hater, I have little trick with the Fatchtarati, and I am massively saddened to come to the point where I'm concluding this
Would you care to name just who these so called PB Tories are who should be on a prevent brownshirt watch
If Starmer and Labour had shown competence and integrity from day 1 we would not be talking about Musk or the hard right
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
Hence the date. It will be published and buried amid the noise. Straight out of Yes Minister.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
I think the key thing that sets Britain apart from many countries on the continent is that it's Farage leading a socially conservative insurgent party and not SYL leading a far-right racist one.
Sometimes the two are conflated, but it's not true. Farage is a pub bore but not a fascist - he's terribly indisciplined, ranty, prickly, and disorganised - but he's not a fascist.
It should be noted he doesn't agree with zero asylum claims or no immigration whatsoever, and he's ejected EDL and BNP people before.
Exactly, when UKIP and then Reform ended up with a lot of unexpected councillors at various times, he was very quick to get rid of anyone with a history of EDL and BNP membership, or who didn’t know where to draw the line and said something hideously racist.
He can tread the line on the ‘grooming’ story in a way that the likes of Nick Griffin* or “Tommy” can’t.
*Incidentally, the first time I heard about this story, in common with many of the public, was when Griffin famously appeared on Question Time back in 2009. The subsequent confirmation of the story by more serious journalists at The Times some years later taught me that there are no bad people, and that even people with terrible opinions can be right sometimes. There were hundreds of thousands of young girls being raped, and he was the only person prepared to talk about it. If we’d all taken it much more seriously at the time, perhaps hundreds of thousands fewer children would have been assaulted.
The National Curriculum was introduced by Mrs Thatchers government in order to stamp out diversity of practice, and to enforce teaching of what that government thought important in terms of history and culture.
The boot is on the other foot now, and Labour get to promote what they think matters in terms of culture and history. Wasn't it the Jesuits who said "give me the boy before the age of 7, and I will give you the man"
That's the odd thing. iirc the problem Ken Baker was ostensibly trying to solve was children changing schools and being stymied because new and old schools were studying different Shakespeare plays for A-level, say.
But somewhere along the line the process was hijacked by politicians (or maybe The Blob) which led to the National Curriculum, when what the original problem needed was a national syllabus for each subject, across the different exam boards.
Although I've not read Ken Baker's memoirs so take this with a pinch of salt. In any case, increasingly the National Curriculum seeks to dictate each syllabus.
And round and round it goes.
Those familiar with the 1980s will giggle at this....
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
It wouldn't be surprised if Musk continues to pick out individual MPs he hates some Thomas Mair character might act on it. It has happened before. This is one of the reasons I believe Badenoch is unwise to jump onto every passing Musk bandwagon. How long before she starts demanding to "free the Yaxley-Lennon one"?
Even on here, as I have previously noted, people I thought of as fairly sober but solidly right wrong posters, those who now go on every single day about how crap Labour are in every tiniest respect, jumped in very willingly during the riots with two tier Keir and more than that direct echoing of the lies of actual neo-Nazis to politically point score. After the first 5 weeks of going on about how crap Labour were in every tiniest respect before they'd actually done anything.
Now PB Tories are a rump of what they once were, but as a grouping most of them now mirror the Corbynites - their hatred of Labour is so blind, so total, that they deserve to be on Prevent's Brownshirt watch - not active neo-Nazis or anything like today but, come the brownshirt revolution, quite susceptible to falling into line.
So, perhaps with these analytics, Musk is right and Farage is wrong -the basic rump right are already so far down the rabbit hole that his message will hit home.
Terrible though Muslim bombers and this generation of care home abusers are, the Momentum of Labour haters led by Republican expulsionists is the clearest, most present danger to ripping asunder the fabric of British society and to my own and my family's life because they seek to become once more the establishment. They seek damage in a way that no dodgy Labour tax rise can hope to replicate.
Yes, the greatest threat to British society now is not Muslim suicide bombers but PB Tories.
I try not to be a Tory hater, I have little trick with the Fatchtarati, and I am massively saddened to come to the point where I'm concluding this
Would you care to name just who these so called PB Tories are who should be on a prevent brownshirt watch
If Starmer and Labour had shown competence and integrity from day 1 we would not be talking about Musk or the hard right
I disagree. The hard right would hate a Labour government whatever it did, and Musk has his own motivations against the government. He cares f'all about the mistakes this government made in the first couple of months, e.g. the freebies.
Also note he was not criticising Sunak's government when it was also making big mistakes.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
It quite surprising that Farage, alongside other well-known-in-America British commentators on the child abuse issue such as Konstantin Kisin and JK Rowling, haven’t been all over Twitter in the last 48 hours saying they want nothing to do with “Tommy” and that he belongs in prison.
“Tommy” appears to have something of an American fan club, his supporters have done an apparently good job of getting his name known over there as someone who stands up for free speech, as opposed to someone who has nearly caused a number of trials to be abandoned and is in prison for disobeying a court order to stop libelling people.
When the Civil Disobedience that Musk and Robinson clearly want to reoccur occurs, Farage (as before with his deliberate and calculted intervention) and now Badenoch with her fatal error of judgement in going against not only her recently departed Government policy, which Labout is only enacting) will be tainted with the fact that they are complicit in stoking up the tension.
If it turns in to a "civil war" of kind on the streets of our Towns and Cities and our Properties; Cultures , Emergency Services and actual fabric of our democracy is put under threat, where does she think (I discount Farage as he is 100% a political opportunist that is his sole policy) that is going to leave her in the eyes of the vast majority of Public Opinion.
THE UK at WAR, and this will be a war, have absolutly no doubt has an inbuilt tendency to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government - whether they are popular or NOT....All she will do is to turn the Tory Party in to Reform / Fascist Light!
The moderate One Nation wing of the Tory Party will 100% no doubt split and seek to take her and her zealots down!
The Mail / Telegraph / Express will revert to type and support the Fascists and we are potentially looking at this Country being targetted and attacked as never before from MAGA / MUSK and trojan horses and Traitors within....
Starmer showed real leadership and balls in August and can do so again.
His first move should be to speak to the Germans and French - equally threatened by Musk and to formulate a plan to neuter him!
The way to neuter Musk is to be a competent government and unfortunately this government is falling a long way short
(Snip)
That would help, but Musky Baby is perfectly willing to lie or dissemble to achieve what he wants - as we see with his ramping of Tommy Robinson. Virtually every time I go on the 'For You' tab on Twitter now, I get the latest 'musings' from Musk or Trump at, or near, the top. There seems to be very little 'truth' or 'fact' involved.
His usage of Twix in this manner is hurting Britain. Sadly, some so-called patriots on here seem to quite like the country being hurt - as long as the 'right' people are targeted.
One of our Brexit freedoms (actually, we could probably have done so before but it would have been more complicated) is that Ofcom could if it fancied cook up some objections to Twitter, Brazil style, and decide to ban it in Britain. Then watch Elon, as he did with Brazil, u-turning on all his nonsense in short order.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
And this matters.
So what this person is saying is that the first flight to Rwanda will take off in 770 years' time?
Well, that timeframe seems optimistic to me. But you never know.
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
Eek, been in present job since 2007..
It still varies from career to career. It is a stupid and pernicious approach. It comes from the idea that promoting people upsets their peers. And that good management is persuading good people to stay in their current job, at the current rate.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
And this matters.
So what this person is saying is that the first flight to Rwanda will take off in 770 years' time?
Well, that timeframe seems optimistic to me. But you never know.
What about the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans?
That is why we will need to invest in Stakeholders
Farage could do a lot worse than get Ar Tommeh inside the Fukker majlis. Hartlepool would probably vote for him as MP. 70%+ of them voted for brexit, for fuck's sake, so they are up for whatever.
Even Farage is intelligent enough to know that being anywhere near “Tommy” cuts his support in half.
It’s one thing to be ‘none of the above’, but very different to be hanging around with a bunch of mostly very racist thugs.
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
Eek, been in present job since 2007..
It still varies from career to career. It is a stupid and pernicious approach. It comes from the idea that promoting people upsets their peers. And that good management is persuading good people to stay in their current job, at the current rate.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
I'd also argue that companies are getting worse (anecdotally...) at in-house training of staff - at least in technology. Investing in staff is becoming rarer.
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
Eek, been in present job since 2007..
It still varies from career to career. It is a stupid and pernicious approach. It comes from the idea that promoting people upsets their peers. And that good management is persuading good people to stay in their current job, at the current rate.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
Probably varies with geographical location too. My guess is there's more job hopping in that there Lan-dan, and less of it op' north because there's less (good) jobs to hop about into.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
Eek, been in present job since 2007..
It still varies from career to career. It is a stupid and pernicious approach. It comes from the idea that promoting people upsets their peers. And that good management is persuading good people to stay in their current job, at the current rate.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
I'd also argue that companies are getting worse (anecdotally...) at in-house training of staff - at least in technology. Investing in staff is becoming rarer.
Classic race to the bottom. Training, like manufacturing is expensive and requires Domain Knowledge. Best to Worstshore it - if you train, then you are at a competitive disadvantage with those who don't.
Which is why I advocate merging of the training/practical skills stuff with Universities. Firms in various industries (such as construction) already pay a training levy - which is supposed to support such.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
I think the key thing that sets Britain apart from many countries on the continent is that it's Farage leading a socially conservative insurgent party and not SYL leading a far-right racist one.
Sometimes the two are conflated, but it's not true. Farage is a pub bore but not a fascist - he's terribly indisciplined, ranty, prickly, and disorganised - but he's not a fascist.
It should be noted he doesn't agree with zero asylum claims or no immigration whatsoever, and he's ejected EDL and BNP people before.
That's historically been a fair point. Though I wonder if it can hold. Farage is primarily an opportunist - hence getting on the MAGA bandwagon despite Trump espousing the kind of views Farage at one time tried to distance himself from. Reform are already different in character to UKIP in terms of being more accepting of broader right-wing conspiracism.
If the global 'populist' right continues to spiral in the direction it's going in, which is a type of modern conspiracy-driven type of internet forum fascism that views liberal democratic institutions and opposition to it as inherently illegitimate. Then it maybe difficult to hold the line - especially when some very rich men, and one in particular, are prepared to make it very lucrative to join them down that rabbithole.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
This is what is wrong with this government of technocrats. The belief that there is a best way of arranging everything that we can all agree on, after which it is just a hop, skip and a jump to the sunlit uplands.
There is no need to develop policy; just declare goals and the Civil Service will create the appropriate policy, and if they don't it is proof the Blob is in the lukewarm bath of whatever word salad it was.
This is how Rachel Reeves came to implement the Treasury's pet wheezes, just as George Osborne had done a decade and a half earlier.
This is anti-politics and will founder not because the Blob is hostile or complacent but because there is no national consensus on goals, let alone paths. Different groups legitimately want different and incompatible things. That is why we have elections. It is not just like a football club changing its manager.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
The consequent fate of the King, for a start.
(One of the other things is fandango is showing us is the dangers of using social media to build up a factual picture of something one doesn't know much about. In this case, Musk's knowledge of Englandland.)
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
It's a Left thing. They declare something to be "consensus" and then you are evil if you think things should be done another way. Mainly, you pack a panel with people who think the same way as you, and magically when they all support a certain way forward, it becomes the "consensus".
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
This is what is wrong with this government of technocrats. The belief that there is a best way of arranging everything that we can all agree on, after which it is just a hop, skip and a jump to the sunlit uplands.
There is no need to develop policy; just declare goals and the Civil Service will create the appropriate policy, and if they don't it is proof the Blob is in the lukewarm bath of whatever word salad it was.
This is how Rachel Reeves came to implement the Treasury's pet wheezes, just as George Osborne had done a decade and a half earlier.
This is anti-politics and will founder not because the Blob is hostile or complacent but because there is no national consensus on goals, let alone paths. Different groups legitimately want different and incompatible things. That is why we have elections. It is not just like a football club changing its manager.
I thought the whole point of a football club changing its manager was to create a radical, substantive change in the policies of the team?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
It's a Left thing. They declare something to be "consensus" and then you are evil if you think things should be done another way. Mainly, you pack a panel with people who think the same way as you, and magically when they all support a certain way forward, it becomes the "consensus".
And in fact this relates to Y Doethur's comments about diversity, Alan Turing and the slave trade above. Not only is it de rigeur to believe that the slave trade was evil (it was) but it was uniquely only the fault of white people. Which is far from being the truth.
As an example, I just reloaded Twix and got the following as the top post from a user I've never heard of before:
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
Nowadays when I load it up it is mainly TV, investing, Wrestling and comic fail videos
Does it load up what it thinks/assumes people are interested in based on the algorithm ?
My experience improved by going to the ‘following’ tab.
I don't know. I don't follow any particularly right-wing people; but I do follow lots of aerospace ones - who tend to be the weird nerds who are fond of Musky Baby.
But this is a problem with social media: we cannot know what is being served up, and to who. We were worried enough about this with FB back in 2015/6...
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
He’s digging himself a proper hole!
No, Mr Musk, the King can’t just dissolve Parliament, and no, “Tommy” is not a free speech warrior journalist, but is at best an idiot with a bad habit of disturbing courts of law, ignoring judges’ orders, and defaming people, who’s now in prison because the courts got utterly fed up with him.
Rather as many of us said during the US campaign that America is a very different country with a common language, there’s a bunch of Americans who clearly don’t understand UK culture or constitution.
I think, or maybe hope, that Musk is overplaying his hand somewhat in respect of UK politics. His increasingly deranged commentary is based largely on gossip, hearsay, and half-baked conspiracy theories rather than facts or evidence. His sources are utterly unreliable. I rather hope that the British public will, over the course of time, recognise that he's painting an excessively gloomy, doom-laden picture of the UK that is far from reality.
Meanwhile, Starmer would be wise to ignore him, as he seems to be doing. Badenoch would be wise to do the same, but doesn't seem to have the sense to do so.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
It wouldn't be surprised if Musk continues to pick out individual MPs he hates some Thomas Mair character might act on it. It has happened before. This is one of the reasons I believe Badenoch is unwise to jump onto every passing Musk bandwagon. How long before she starts demanding to "free the Yaxley-Lennon one"?
Even on here, as I have previously noted, people I thought of as fairly sober but solidly right wrong posters, those who now go on every single day about how crap Labour are in every tiniest respect, jumped in very willingly during the riots with two tier Keir and more than that direct echoing of the lies of actual neo-Nazis to politically point score. After the first 5 weeks of going on about how crap Labour were in every tiniest respect before they'd actually done anything.
Now PB Tories are a rump of what they once were, but as a grouping most of them now mirror the Corbynites - their hatred of Labour is so blind, so total, that they deserve to be on Prevent's Brownshirt watch - not active neo-Nazis or anything like today but, come the brownshirt revolution, quite susceptible to falling into line.
So, perhaps with these analytics, Musk is right and Farage is wrong -the basic rump right are already so far down the rabbit hole that his message will hit home.
Terrible though Muslim bombers and this generation of care home abusers are, the Momentum of Labour haters led by Republican expulsionists is the clearest, most present danger to ripping asunder the fabric of British society and to my own and my family's life because they seek to become once more the establishment. They seek damage in a way that no dodgy Labour tax rise can hope to replicate.
Yes, the greatest threat to British society now is not Muslim suicide bombers but PB Tories.
I try not to be a Tory hater, I have little trick with the Fatchtarati, and I am massively saddened to come to the point where I'm concluding this.
A fine post. The 'herd' as they used to be known are so enraged that their hatred reminds me of the floods from yesterday. A canal broke its bank and the putrid water spread. The hatred of labour is as irrational as it is visceral. To some on here it's turned into full blown racism. it's not a short step to embracing Tommy Robinson and wanting Pakistanis in Rotherham to be hung from lamposts. We're already there.
I never thought we'd live to see the day ydoethur accepted creeping Americanisations like this. Pissed off at, not getting drunk with! O tempora, o mores.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
It's a Left thing. They declare something to be "consensus" and then you are evil if you think things should be done another way. Mainly, you pack a panel with people who think the same way as you, and magically when they all support a certain way forward, it becomes the "consensus".
And yet Labour has appointed David Gauke, that well-known leftie, to lead the prison sentencing review.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
When has Farage ever advocated abolishing the NHS ?
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
He’s digging himself a proper hole!
No, Mr Musk, the King can’t just dissolve Parliament, and no, “Tommy” is not a free speech warrior journalist, but is at best an idiot with a bad habit of disturbing courts of law, ignoring judges’ orders, and defaming people, who’s now in prison because the courts got utterly fed up with him.
Rather as many of us said during the US campaign that America is a very different country with a common language, there’s a bunch of Americans who clearly don’t understand UK culture or constitution.
Technically, the King can "just dissolve parliament". It's one of these funny areas where legal powers exceed constitutional powers.
Musk's comment is, though, as you say, revealing about the British constitution. More relevantly, it's also revealing about his understanding of politics as a whole. Legitimacy matters. This is a point that he, and others like Trump, who deal primarily in terms of 'what can I do' within the framework of raw power, simply don't grasp on its own merits and, hence, the secondary and tertiary effects of decisions taken within the wider social-political ecosystem.
Put more simply: actions have reactions. Even the National Curriculum gets that.
I think, or maybe hope, that Musk is overplaying his hand somewhat in respect of UK politics. His increasingly deranged commentary is based largely on gossip, hearsay, and half-baked conspiracy theories rather than facts or evidence. His sources are utterly unreliable. I rather hope that the British public will, over the course of time, recognise that he's painting an excessively gloomy, doom-laden picture of the UK that is far from reality.
Meanwhile, Starmer would be wise to ignore him, as he seems to be doing. Badenoch would be wise to do the same, but doesn't seem to have the sense to do so.
I don't subscribe, or whatever one has to do to get regular Twatter, and have absolutely no intention of doing so.
@ydoethur thanks for the interesting articles. Have you considered getting out of education and doing something completely different?
When I read your stuff you reminded me of my father who taught too long, fought the good fight too long and late in life discovered new joy and energy outside of teaching, exams etc.
Just a thought. Life’s too short.
Well, in effect I have. I now work for myself which gives me much more freedom, the chance to pick and choose what and when I teach (and from where) and actually pays rather better, although when you factor in pension that probably balances out (as whatever the unions say, the TPS is still a very good pension compared to most).
That doesn't mean the stupidity and incompetence of what I see left behind me doesn't still exasperate me. What is especially frustrating is that we could have a much better education system if only the centre would stop doing so much damn meddling, which wouldn't even cost us any more money, and we never get it (part 3 is on this).
I may, in a few years, go into a different sector entirely, and I've done some exploring of a couple of options. But the truth is as an intellectual exercise I actually really enjoy teaching and I am very good at it. My results consistently suggest I was among the top 1% of teachers in the country for value added, which tells me I was doing something right.
But at the moment I'm pretty happy with where I am.
And of course, I have complete freedom to snipe from the sidelines now.
This was the delight that I gained when I ceased being a solicitor and went to the bar 24 years ago now. You were suddenly paid a lot more money for doing the bits of the job that you enjoyed and managed to avoid most of the work that you didn't (in my case, reports, managing staff, financial targets, client complaints etc etc.).
For the last 2 years I have been back in harness to some degree accountable to COPFS. I like the central part of the work (trials and investigations) but have found the return to bureaucracy something of a drag.
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas! Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent, That he himself felt only “like a youth Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
Indeed. Those who are very knowledgeable in any particular area tend to be pretty modest about it because they have learned enough to actually comprehend just how much they don't know. Those who confidently claim to know all the answers are not to be trusted.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
I think, or maybe hope, that Musk is overplaying his hand somewhat in respect of UK politics. His increasingly deranged commentary is based largely on gossip, hearsay, and half-baked conspiracy theories rather than facts or evidence. His sources are utterly unreliable. I rather hope that the British public will, over the course of time, recognise that he's painting an excessively gloomy, doom-laden picture of the UK that is far from reality.
Meanwhile, Starmer would be wise to ignore him, as he seems to be doing. Badenoch would be wise to do the same, but doesn't seem to have the sense to do so.
Starmer has little choice but to ignore him and hope that is enough to hang on to 30%ish and the economy turns out well.
Badenoch is in a very different position. The Tory vote is a mix of those repelled by Musk and those cheerleading him. She can't win, even if she was any good, which she isn't.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
He’s digging himself a proper hole!
No, Mr Musk, the King can’t just dissolve Parliament, and no, “Tommy” is not a free speech warrior journalist, but is at best an idiot with a bad habit of disturbing courts of law, ignoring judges’ orders, and defaming people, who’s now in prison because the courts got utterly fed up with him.
Rather as many of us said during the US campaign that America is a very different country with a common language, there’s a bunch of Americans who clearly don’t understand UK culture or constitution.
Yes, Elon is pushing it too far. There were elements of the British Right who were prepared to give him some leeway on a 'Starmer's enemy is my friend' justification. But he's now making himself look so ridiculous that no one is going to want to touch him. I suspect even Nigel is now thinking twice about the donation.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas! Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent, That he himself felt only “like a youth Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
Indeed. Those who are very knowledgeable in any particular area tend to be pretty modest about it because they have learned enough to actually comprehend just how much they don't know. Those who confidently claim to know all the answers are not to be trusted.
"The older I get, the more I realise I don't know," as someone* once said.
Does the media influence elections? Err, of course. Influence or manipulate, whatever. On their own meta are not substantial but aligned with other media of course the answer is yes.
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas! Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent, That he himself felt only “like a youth Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
Indeed. Those who are very knowledgeable in any particular area tend to be pretty modest about it because they have learned enough to actually comprehend just how much they don't know. Those who confidently claim to know all the answers are not to be trusted.
"The older I get, the more I realise I don't know," as someone* once said.
* But I don't know who!
Mark Twain once said:
When I was twenty, I realised my father was totally ignorant. When I was twenty-one I was amazed at how much he'd learned in the previous year.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
It quite surprising that Farage, alongside other well-known-in-America British commentators on the child abuse issue such as Konstantin Kisin and JK Rowling, haven’t been all over Twitter in the last 48 hours saying they want nothing to do with “Tommy” and that he belongs in prison.
“Tommy” appears to have something of an American fan club, his supporters have done an apparently good job of getting his name known over there as someone who stands up for free speech, as opposed to someone who has nearly caused a number of trials to be abandoned and is in prison for disobeying a court order to stop libelling people.
When the Civil Disobedience that Musk and Robinson clearly want to reoccur occurs, Farage (as before with his deliberate and calculted intervention) and now Badenoch with her fatal error of judgement in going against not only her recently departed Government policy, which Labout is only enacting) will be tainted with the fact that they are complicit in stoking up the tension.
If it turns in to a "civil war" of kind on the streets of our Towns and Cities and our Properties; Cultures , Emergency Services and actual fabric of our democracy is put under threat, where does she think (I discount Farage as he is 100% a political opportunist that is his sole policy) that is going to leave her in the eyes of the vast majority of Public Opinion.
THE UK at WAR, and this will be a war, have absolutly no doubt has an inbuilt tendency to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government - whether they are popular or NOT....All she will do is to turn the Tory Party in to Reform / Fascist Light!
The moderate One Nation wing of the Tory Party will 100% no doubt split and seek to take her and her zealots down!
The Mail / Telegraph / Express will revert to type and support the Fascists and we are potentially looking at this Country being targetted and attacked as never before from MAGA / MUSK and trojan horses and Traitors within....
Starmer showed real leadership and balls in August and can do so again.
His first move should be to speak to the Germans and French - equally threatened by Musk and to formulate a plan to neuter him!
You've got the beginning of a film script there. I sort of agree that we need to sever our ties with the US as much as possible because for the next 4 years they're going to be unstable and to that end we need to team up with Europe again.
My only concern is how solid is Starmer. As you say he was excellent against the fascist riots-his biggest achievement- but whether he has a vision of the wider picture I'm not sure. The next few months will tell.
Poor Starmer, from shit hot to bucket of cold shit in 6 months.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
The scene where she was hired by Mrs Reed to be a Black Dove was absolutely superb. Other parts are indeed more than a little bit silly but its good fun.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
You should watch The Day of the Jackal. It is by far the better spy thriller. Both leads are brilliant, Lashana Lynch does a great job of playing counter foil to Eddie Redmayne and it doesn't treat the viewer like a moron. You want her to catch him but also don't. It's brilliantly done.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
Which is why I prefer things like Tinker Tailor...
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
Teaching at three universities and four schools.......
Is that a lot? i used to do guest lecturing which would have given me numbers like that though occupying just a few days a year. If yours was full time did you have problems holding down your jobs?
You're having a bit of an ad hom streak recently, Roger.
My wife was a primary teacher for a couple of decades, and I was a school governor for about half that time.
What little knowledge I have tends to confirm @ydoethur 's judgments.
I know nothing about the subject. I never even went to University. I've been invited to a few to share what scant knowledge I have about a specific subject and that's all. It really wasn't meant as a criticism I was just curious. Most lecturers I know seem to have stayed at the same place forever
I imagine that most of them are quite elderly?
Until the mid 90s it was usual as an academic to walk into a job and stay there.
That is no longer the case. The pace is hotter, the rewards are less, and permanent contracts are handed out rather reluctantly. Also, following Gove's reform to Russell Group many permanent contracts have turned out to be very impermanent. So most of my former colleagues have taught in several more than that - I can think of one who's on his fourth university and another who's on his fifth.
In teaching, it isn't seen as great for career progression to stay on one school. You are generally expected, to advance to SLT, to have taught in at least two and most of them quite like three. This is based on the belief that it widens your perspective and allows you to be more innovative (which may be true). The old days of starting as a rookie and advancing to Head all within the same school have largely disappeared.
In IT (and much of banking), staying more than 3-5 years is seen as career rot. Because of a stupid culture of internal non-promotion, if you stay in the same place, largely. So everyone moves. You often see zig-zagging - people leave and come back, jumping 3 places on the ladder.
So someone starting out now, looking at a career from 25 to 75, is looking at 10-15 jobs.
Eek, been in present job since 2007..
It still varies from career to career. It is a stupid and pernicious approach. It comes from the idea that promoting people upsets their peers. And that good management is persuading good people to stay in their current job, at the current rate.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
I'd also argue that companies are getting worse (anecdotally...) at in-house training of staff - at least in technology. Investing in staff is becoming rarer.
Classic race to the bottom. Training, like manufacturing is expensive and requires Domain Knowledge. Best to Worstshore it - if you train, then you are at a competitive disadvantage with those who don't.
Which is why I advocate merging of the training/practical skills stuff with Universities. Firms in various industries (such as construction) already pay a training levy - which is supposed to support such.
I think your proposal makes matters worse, not better.
The key to development is to ensure firms find training worthwhile, as they have previously. That firms which invest in it are rewarded for it. Not trying to embed the idea that training should be someone else's issue.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
You can only enjoy Black Doves if you suspend your disbelief: you're taking it far too seriously. It's cartoon-strip stuff, and some of the jokes in it make it clear that you're not really meant to see the plot as plausible. It's a bit of good fun, that's all.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
Which is why I prefer things like Tinker Tailor...
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
Wick 4 had such long violence scenes it just got boring.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
Which is why I prefer things like Tinker Tailor...
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
The '79 BBC version? Absolutely, fantastic show. But practically a different genre to the likes of "Black Doves".
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
Isn't that the case for just about every popular action film? The hero is a crack shot, has lightning reflexes and always outsmarts his/her enemies, while the baddies are gormless idiots who coulndn't hit a barn door with a shotgun?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
The scene where she was hired by Mrs Reed to be a Black Dove was absolutely superb. Other parts are indeed more than a little bit silly but its good fun.
To the point that it feels like a piss take. Slow Horses is easily the best spy show on TV atm, closely followed by The Day of the Jackal. This doesn't even get close to either of those.
Does the media influence elections? Err, of course. Influence or manipulate, whatever. On their own meta are not substantial but aligned with other media of course the answer is yes.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
Which is why I prefer things like Tinker Tailor...
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
Wick 4 had such long violence scenes it just got boring.
By that stage it was a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody.
The first one is still excellent for what it was,
Sadly, they didn't do the sequel we all wanted. John Wick retires to.... manage a pencil factory.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
I think the key thing that sets Britain apart from many countries on the continent is that it's Farage leading a socially conservative insurgent party and not SYL leading a far-right racist one.
Sometimes the two are conflated, but it's not true. Farage is a pub bore but not a fascist - he's terribly indisciplined, ranty, prickly, and disorganised - but he's not a fascist.
It should be noted he doesn't agree with zero asylum claims or no immigration whatsoever, and he's ejected EDL and BNP people before.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
Dipping into PB and politics rarely at the moment provides all sorts of fresh perspectives. The intensity of the right wing online digital debate is mind boggling. It’s a bubbling cauldron. Feels quite dangerous, potentially all consuming and cult like . The astute politician and punter needs to be careful about how deep into it they go.
There's no serious elections for four years either here or in the US and no all-consuming crises or issues like the GFC, Brexit or the pandemic so people online are pretty obviously looking for things to get outraged about. And the cash for clicks industry is of course doing its best to oblige. It's not just a right-wing thing - there's plenty of it on the left too.
Elon Musk tweeting now that the King should dissolve Parliament and call a new general election. Which would give us something to bet on.
Musk is an utter twat when it comes to politics. Which is quite a dangerus thing for the world's richest man to be.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
In it that the case for just about every popular action film? The hero is a crack shot, has lightning reflexes and always outsmarts his/her enemies, while the baddies are gormless idiots who coulndn't hit a barn door with a shotgun?
Except these are the same black ops people that pulled off multiple assassinations etc... previously. As I said, it feels like satire a lot of the time but apparently it's not supposed to be.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
D'ye think the latest iteration of The Jackal is particularly realistic? I think it verges on the parodic just as much as Black Doves, only with nuch less self awareness.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
When has Farage ever advocated abolishing the NHS ?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
You can only enjoy Black Doves if you suspend your disbelief: you're taking it far too seriously. It's cartoon-strip stuff, and some of the jokes in it make it clear that you're not really meant to see the plot as plausible. It's a bit of good fun, that's all.
It's not supposed to be though, the show is supposed to be serious, not Austin Powers.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
It's a Left thing. They declare something to be "consensus" and then you are evil if you think things should be done another way. Mainly, you pack a panel with people who think the same way as you, and magically when they all support a certain way forward, it becomes the "consensus".
That's a load of nonsense; it's a politician thing. For example, we've been talking about the 'Thatcherite consensus' for nearly three decades. Everyone declares stuff to be consensus; very occasionally it's even true.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
It quite surprising that Farage, alongside other well-known-in-America British commentators on the child abuse issue such as Konstantin Kisin and JK Rowling, haven’t been all over Twitter in the last 48 hours saying they want nothing to do with “Tommy” and that he belongs in prison.
“Tommy” appears to have something of an American fan club, his supporters have done an apparently good job of getting his name known over there as someone who stands up for free speech, as opposed to someone who has nearly caused a number of trials to be abandoned and is in prison for disobeying a court order to stop libelling people.
When the Civil Disobedience that Musk and Robinson clearly want to reoccur occurs, Farage (as before with his deliberate and calculted intervention) and now Badenoch with her fatal error of judgement in going against not only her recently departed Government policy, which Labout is only enacting) will be tainted with the fact that they are complicit in stoking up the tension.
If it turns in to a "civil war" of kind on the streets of our Towns and Cities and our Properties; Cultures , Emergency Services and actual fabric of our democracy is put under threat, where does she think (I discount Farage as he is 100% a political opportunist that is his sole policy) that is going to leave her in the eyes of the vast majority of Public Opinion.
THE UK at WAR, and this will be a war, have absolutly no doubt has an inbuilt tendency to support the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government - whether they are popular or NOT....All she will do is to turn the Tory Party in to Reform / Fascist Light!
The moderate One Nation wing of the Tory Party will 100% no doubt split and seek to take her and her zealots down!
The Mail / Telegraph / Express will revert to type and support the Fascists and we are potentially looking at this Country being targetted and attacked as never before from MAGA / MUSK and trojan horses and Traitors within....
Starmer showed real leadership and balls in August and can do so again.
His first move should be to speak to the Germans and French - equally threatened by Musk and to formulate a plan to neuter him!
The way to neuter Musk is to be a competent government and unfortunately this government is falling a long way short
(Snip)
That would help, but Musky Baby is perfectly willing to lie or dissemble to achieve what he wants - as we see with his ramping of Tommy Robinson. Virtually every time I go on the 'For You' tab on Twitter now, I get the latest 'musings' from Musk or Trump at, or near, the top. There seems to be very little 'truth' or 'fact' involved.
His usage of Twix in this manner is hurting Britain. Sadly, some so-called patriots on here seem to quite like the country being hurt - as long as the 'right' people are targeted.
It’s hurting Britain in the same sense that someone pointing out the failures of communism was hurting the Soviet Union.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
It's becoming their dna
It's in their DNA, but it's thoroughly unbecoming.
There's an interim report in 2026 so possible something will happen but I very much doubt it.
I far more involved in the social care system than I would like to be, to say the least.
This will be an exercise in spending three or four years gathering evidence of what everyone already knows i.e. social care is on its knees, and then any attempt at finding a way to fund it going forward will be conveniently kicked until past the 2029 GE when it will now likely be Farage's problem.
Streeting confirmed this morning the final report will be in 2028, and he wants to find a concensus which seems sensible if maybe difficult just before a GE
It means it's been kicked into the long grass.
That's what statements like that mean.
I don't understand what could possibly be the "consensus". Labour have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a National Care Service. The Tories don't support such an entity being created iirc.
It's a Left thing. They declare something to be "consensus" and then you are evil if you think things should be done another way. Mainly, you pack a panel with people who think the same way as you, and magically when they all support a certain way forward, it becomes the "consensus".
That's a load of nonsense; it's a politician thing. For example, we've been talking about the 'Thatcherite consensus' for nearly three decades. Everyone declares stuff to be consensus; very occasionally it's even true.
The Thatcher consensus died somewhere around 2005 to be replaced by the Blair settlement.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
You can only enjoy Black Doves if you suspend your disbelief: you're taking it far too seriously. It's cartoon-strip stuff, and some of the jokes in it make it clear that you're not really meant to see the plot as plausible. It's a bit of good fun, that's all.
They don’t lean far enough into the cartoon-strip nature of the thing. If they had, they could have ended up with something much more fun - like, for instance, Atomic Blonde or the first Red movie.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
Does the media influence elections? Err, of course. Influence or manipulate, whatever. On their own meta are not substantial but aligned with other media of course the answer is yes.
Manipulation, influence, persuasion, propaganda, information, argument are all words to describe processes of getting people to vote X or Y or Z. They all function as irregular verbs such as: I inform You persuade He manipulates etc.
So what? The answer to bad stuff is good stuff. And that begins with a culture of deep trust in the integrity and honesty of all the big political parties, and a history of government which is competent, truthful and effective.
So, for example, when it is responsible for aspects of the funding and provision of social care it does well and effectively what it has taken responsibility for.
Start there.
Labour, who many voted for to be a new start in good government, has just put back a major reform due in 2011 to after the next election.
is it any wonder that people pay attention to populists?
One of the basic problems when discussing education is that everyone has been to school and therefore everyone has a view. That might not be so bad, but it's exacerbated by the fact that 'everyone', apart of course from teachers, has only one experience of education, their own, and this colours their view of both others, and their children's education.
It's similar when discussing social care, for a different reason. Very few, especially of the great and good, opinion formers and so on, have any experience of social care, especially the lower end of the spectrum.
The result in both cases is that there's a great deal of ill-informed comment on both subjects.
It took me a couple of years as a governor to realise just how little I knew.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas! Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent, That he himself felt only “like a youth Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
Indeed. Those who are very knowledgeable in any particular area tend to be pretty modest about it because they have learned enough to actually comprehend just how much they don't know. Those who confidently claim to know all the answers are not to be trusted.
"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field" - Niels Bohr.
Talking of the Telegraph this headline poses the real question
Why Musks love in with Tommy Robinson presents a problem for Farage
Yup. I've thought that as well. All of the LABOUR ARE EVIL posts on there, WE NEED REFORM. And then a rapid pivot to FREE TOMMY ROBINSON complete with SYL looking less thuggish with a Lion and a smart suit superimposed over a flag and the white cliffs of Dover.
Why does SYL hold such a thrall over some people? Because (a) there is a kernel of truth in his analysis before he pivoting off into "and the solution is deport the muslims", and (b) his presentation is just slick enough to enthral morons.
Farage knows that offering up kernels of truth and then pivoting off into "lets abolish the NHS" will win a lot of votes. But he also knows that SYL and the other hardcore racists will lose him votes. And yet his boss President Musk just wants to agitate. How do you tell the new boss that he needs to be nuanced, when his movement is about rile up the mob and watch them tear it all down?
When has Farage ever advocated abolishing the NHS ?
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
The scene where she was hired by Mrs Reed to be a Black Dove was absolutely superb. Other parts are indeed more than a little bit silly but its good fun.
To the point that it feels like a piss take. Slow Horses is easily the best spy show on TV atm, closely followed by The Day of the Jackal. This doesn't even get close to either of those.
I enjoyed the first few episodes of Day of the Jackal but the ending was so absurd that it cast a negative, retrospective pall on it for me.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
Isn't that the case for just about every popular action film? The hero is a crack shot, has lightning reflexes and always outsmarts his/her enemies, while the baddies are gormless idiots who coulndn't hit a barn door with a shotgun?
There is a potential good business in opening up a training school for henchmen to learn to shoot as they aren’t usually very competent in tv world.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
Just wait until you find out Daniel Radcliffe can't really do magic.
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
You can only enjoy Black Doves if you suspend your disbelief: you're taking it far too seriously. It's cartoon-strip stuff, and some of the jokes in it make it clear that you're not really meant to see the plot as plausible. It's a bit of good fun, that's all.
They don’t lean far enough into the cartoon-strip nature of the thing. If they had, they could have ended up with something much more fun - like, for instance, Atomic Blonde or the first Red movie.
Yup, this is the problem for me. Either go full satire and make it a send up of spy action movies/shows or be serious. The way they've done it doesn't work for me, and seeming not for wider audiences either as it's only got a 60% audience rating on rotten tomatoes vs a 93% critic rating.
The second season of The Diplomat had the same issue. The story was just ridiculous but we're supposed to take it seriously as the audience
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
Actually I think you'll find I said I'd still support Elon Musk trolling the Labour party despite him backing Tommy Robinson.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
Just wait until you find out Daniel Radcliffe can't really do magic.
The cost of employing someone on the minimum wage rises by £2,367 this year
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
Or, without the hyperbole: wages, unemployment and prices will all go up a bit.
Though given that one of the current issues is the need to import so many workers, maybe reducing the demand for workers is a necessary thing.
We really do need to find the sweet spot where companies (and the civil service) are happy to invest in productivity improvements instead of throwing more people at an issue
13 years after the Dilnot report (2011) this government, instead of acting quickly, has pushed the matter back to reporting in 2028.
Not to be prepared for decision and action on coming into government feels like a major fail for Labour.
To say I'm disappointed with this Government would be the understatement of the century.
The last government had to go.
I think many expected a short period of honest and competent government from this one, but it seems they expected too much.
WRT the header, I expect plenty in authority see nothing problematic with paying teenagers for sex.
I'd say it's more that Diversity is a religion they see as essential to be preached and its lessons to be imbibed throughout every single aspect of the curriculum. The unwritten hope is that future generations of children back their politics as a result.
Of course, this isn't true, and actually risks a backlash that could set liberalism backwards, but they're either too far gone to see that or don't care because this is really about ingratiating themselves with their peers.
How many million young men just voted for Trump in the US? There’s your backlash right there.
When ‘diversity’ moves from ‘treat everyone equally’, to ‘no white men allowed’ and ‘there are 45 genders our drag queens want to talk about with your toddler’, it’s not really surprising.
In the last thread, @MaxPB said he didn't care about Tommy Robinson's crimes, he would support him because he's against the establishment. He then later complained about a popular new Netflix show ("Black Doves") because one of the leads is a gay character and the other is a woman. It's that that I see as the problem with your suggested analysis here. People with comfortable existences are caught up in ridiculous outrage bubbles. They are not being oppressed by over-the-top "diversity". They have fallen into an alt-right social media rabbit hole that condones their temper tantrums.
I have to say that the script for Black Doves is really excellent, genuinely witty. Kiera Knightly is also superb. I have 3 episodes to go which will hopefully be covered this weekend.
I am halfway through and enjoying it. It is ridiculous in places, but in the way spy/thriller things often are. Knightley is great. Without the acting talent of the two leads, the silliness of the plot would show more!
Which is why I prefer things like Tinker Tailor...
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
Wick 4 had such long violence scenes it just got boring.
By that stage it was a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody.
The first one is still excellent for what it was,
Sadly, they didn't do the sequel we all wanted. John Wick retires to.... manage a pencil factory.
Comments
But somewhere along the line the process was hijacked by politicians (or maybe The Blob) which led to the National Curriculum, when what the original problem needed was a national syllabus for each subject, across the different exam boards.
Although I've not read Ken Baker's memoirs so take this with a pinch of salt. In any case, increasingly the National Curriculum seeks to dictate each syllabus.
His usage of Twix in this manner is hurting Britain. Sadly, some so-called patriots on here seem to quite like the country being hurt - as long as the 'right' people are targeted.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing for the last 2 years.
That's what statements like that mean.
"It is NEVER too late to take your Country back.
In 722, a group of Catholics in the north of Spain decided they would wake up every day for the rest of their lives with just one mission: to kick Islam out of Spain. In 1492, they finally did it.
Europe needs this energy again!"
This sort of shit is being fed directly to millions of people.
And this matters.
That is, by the way, exactly how the MAGA crowd get to "We must nullify elections to protect Democracy".
Well, that timeframe seems optimistic to me. But you never know.
Newton, (that proverb of the mind,) alas!
Declared, with all his grand discoveries recent,
That he himself felt only “like a youth
Picking up shells by the great ocean—Truth.”
If Starmer and Labour had shown competence and integrity from day 1 we would not be talking about Musk or the hard right
If it had been raining I would be walking.
He can tread the line on the ‘grooming’ story in a way that the likes of Nick Griffin* or “Tommy” can’t.
*Incidentally, the first time I heard about this story, in common with many of the public, was when Griffin famously appeared on Question Time back in 2009. The subsequent confirmation of the story by more serious journalists at The Times some years later taught me that there are no bad people, and that even people with terrible opinions can be right sometimes. There were hundreds of thousands of young girls being raped, and he was the only person prepared to talk about it. If we’d all taken it much more seriously at the time, perhaps hundreds of thousands fewer children would have been assaulted.
Those familiar with the 1980s will giggle at this....
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/peru-school-curricula-as-new-sites-of-lgbtq-liberation/
“All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.”
Also note he was not criticising Sunak's government when it was also making big mistakes.
There is also an element of "promotes the morons, the people who know how to do the job need to stay and do it". So you see people being held back, because they do the work that makes their manager look good.
First the Israeli Government and now the Palestinian Authority are getting pissed with them.
Palestinian Authority suspends Al Jazeera TV channel in West Bank
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmxzyrmn8o
Which is why I advocate merging of the training/practical skills stuff with Universities. Firms in various industries (such as construction) already pay a training levy - which is supposed to support such.
If the global 'populist' right continues to spiral in the direction it's going in, which is a type of modern conspiracy-driven type of internet forum fascism that views liberal democratic institutions and opposition to it as inherently illegitimate. Then it maybe difficult to hold the line - especially when some very rich men, and one in particular, are prepared to make it very lucrative to join them down that rabbithole.
There is no need to develop policy; just declare goals and the Civil Service will create the appropriate policy, and if they don't it is proof the Blob is in the lukewarm bath of whatever word salad it was.
This is how Rachel Reeves came to implement the Treasury's pet wheezes, just as George Osborne had done a decade and a half earlier.
This is anti-politics and will founder not because the Blob is hostile or complacent but because there is no national consensus on goals, let alone paths. Different groups legitimately want different and incompatible things. That is why we have elections. It is not just like a football club changing its manager.
(One of the other things is fandango is showing us is the dangers of using social media to build up a factual picture of something one doesn't know much about. In this case, Musk's knowledge of Englandland.)
https://x.com/jamesahogg2/status/1875102410919854450?s=61
Nowadays when I load it up it is mainly TV, investing, Wrestling and comic fail videos
Does it load up what it thinks/assumes people are interested in based on the algorithm ?
My experience improved by going to the ‘following’ tab.
To increase goals.
But this is a problem with social media: we cannot know what is being served up, and to who. We were worried enough about this with FB back in 2015/6...
All thanks to Reeves disastrous budget.
This will have a dramatic impact on the jobs market and wages. The money has to come from somewhere. Corbynites just cry ‘take it from profits’. Why should they ?
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1875109805905633592?s=61l
Liam Byrne MP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiooL52eHzQ
No, Mr Musk, the King can’t just dissolve Parliament, and no, “Tommy” is not a free speech warrior journalist, but is at best an idiot with a bad habit of disturbing courts of law, ignoring judges’ orders, and defaming people, who’s now in prison because the courts got utterly fed up with him.
Rather as many of us said during the US campaign that America is a very different country with a common language, there’s a bunch of Americans who clearly don’t understand UK culture or constitution.
Meanwhile, Starmer would be wise to ignore him, as he seems to be doing.
Badenoch would be wise to do the same, but doesn't seem to have the sense to do so.
Musk's comment is, though, as you say, revealing about the British constitution. More relevantly, it's also revealing about his understanding of politics as a whole. Legitimacy matters. This is a point that he, and others like Trump, who deal primarily in terms of 'what can I do' within the framework of raw power, simply don't grasp on its own merits and, hence, the secondary and tertiary effects of decisions taken within the wider social-political ecosystem.
Put more simply: actions have reactions. Even the National Curriculum gets that.
For the last 2 years I have been back in harness to some degree accountable to COPFS. I like the central part of the work (trials and investigations) but have found the return to bureaucracy something of a drag.
I campaign
He promotes.
They manipulate.
Badenoch is in a very different position. The Tory vote is a mix of those repelled by Musk and those cheerleading him. She can't win, even if she was any good, which she isn't.
Farage will be laughing at his fortune.
Also, the main criticism of Black Doves is that it's laughably unrealistic to the point it could be satire. There's literally a scene where our heroine faces off against an army of opponents, not a single person can shoot her but she's a perfect marksman and gets them all. I really thought that scene was a send up of those 80s action movies but no, it's meant to be serious. There's also stuff like her being able to as a waif thin woman disarm a much bigger and stronger black ops soldier/agent. It's just completely unrealistic and makes the whole thing just seem ridiculous. It's the kind of slop intended to get a high critic rating but probably doesn't do well with audiences. I'll be willing to bet that the audience ratings of the show are substantially lower than critic consensus.
* But I don't know who!
When I was twenty, I realised my father was totally ignorant.
When I was twenty-one I was amazed at how much he'd learned in the previous year.
The modern style of Telenovelas plotting (In a shock twist, your enemy is now your friend! This episode! And your friends! Are! Now! Your! Enemies!) with John Wick violence poured on, like the topping on pub nachos....
How will the WFA cuts pan out ?
The key to development is to ensure firms find training worthwhile, as they have previously. That firms which invest in it are rewarded for it. Not trying to embed the idea that training should be someone else's issue.
The first one is still excellent for what it was,
Sadly, they didn't do the sequel we all wanted. John Wick retires to.... manage a pencil factory.
Which is quite a dangerus thing for the world's richest man to be.
For example, we've been talking about the 'Thatcherite consensus' for nearly three decades. Everyone declares stuff to be consensus; very occasionally it's even true.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/03/trump-attacks-labours-decision-to-abandon-north-sea-oil/
This week the dollar has risen against both the Euro and GBP by 1%.
That’s a general concern about Europe as a whole not just the UK.
I inform
You persuade
He manipulates etc.
So what? The answer to bad stuff is good stuff. And that begins with a culture of deep trust in the integrity and honesty of all the big political parties, and a history of government which is competent, truthful and effective.
So, for example, when it is responsible for aspects of the funding and provision of social care it does well and effectively what it has taken responsibility for.
Start there.
Labour, who many voted for to be a new start in good government, has just put back a major reform due in 2011 to after the next election.
is it any wonder that people pay attention to populists?
The second season of The Diplomat had the same issue. The story was just ridiculous but we're supposed to take it seriously as the audience