I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.
Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.
Secession, season 1.
There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.
I see the obvious response to this has already been given.
An independent California in reality would be very problematic, given major US military resources in the state including one of its largest naval bases. A bit like the Russian base at Sevastopol in Crimea, I suppose.
Texas succession is another problem given its stranglehold on the oil and gas industry and several strategic ports, but I suppose that’s more like Scotland vis a vis RUK.
Doesn't a State wishing to secede have to gain significant support from the other States? Seem to recall reading that something like that was enacted after the Civil War.
The other states would asset strip it to buggery.
Ask Boris Johnson what happened when he 'seceded'.
Or any other US citizen who has never been there, but still has to do a tax return every year.
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
I read it when I was at University, and it made me realise I was never going to be a corporate executive of any note. Insufficient chutzpah, for one thing.
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
I am probably as a software engineer thought of as middle class, I can't afford a mortgage, a car is too costly to run, I don't have a wig and wouldn't take it for a donner and a show even if I did. I am not satisfied. Nor are most supposedly middle class I know in the same situation....guess civil war in 3...2....1
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Entire gaff is getting pepped
I hear Lulu Lytle is very good.
I prefer Lululemon.
More for boriswives than Boris himself though. I hope.
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
You're wandering off point.
At least I have one
That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....
I am at least someone not arguing we should subvert even the little democracy we have by suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that violate Kinablu's sensibilities
It says here that my local East Midlands Mainline station has been made accessible, with a footbridge and lifts.
Since 1994 when the barrow crossing was removed, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 with a wheelchair has been "catch a train to Nottingham / Chesterfield (depending on 1->2 or 2->1), use their lift, get another train back." That takes 60-90 minutes. It meant I could never use it to take mum anywhere at the end.
There have been at least 4 cycles of "money allocated, yes we will do it" that have never happened. And it says it only cost £6.75m.
I've had to cancel my evening walk to go and have a look. I'll post a piccie to seek views if it as ugly as everything else Network Rail do.
Now we need to deal with the mobility scooter ban on some parts of our rail system, and the wheelchair spaces that are too small for about 1/4 of wheel chairs in brand new trains, and the cycle storage that requires cycles to be hung off a hook on the wall at head height which are always obstructed by suitcases and are more difficult for women, John Bercow and BobbyJ and useless if you have lugggae on the bikes, and ....
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
You're wandering off point.
At least I have one
That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....
I am at least someone not arguing we should subvert even the little democracy we have by suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that violate Kinablu's sensibilities
Whoosh!
Sorry your sense of humour seems to have eluded me but then I never got a lot of left wing comics who seemed to have a sense of humour in the same way as tigers have a sense of veganism.
Alexei Sayle was funny....ben elton, russel brand, and jo brand etc were almost as funny as having your dangling gonads crushed by a couple of have bricks
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
You're wandering off point.
At least I have one
That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....
I am at least someone not arguing we should subvert even the little democracy we have by suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that violate Kinablu's sensibilities
Whoosh!
Sorry your sense of humour seems to have eluded me but then I never got a lot of left wing comics who seemed to have a sense of humour in the same way as tigers have a sense of veganism.
Alexei Sayle was funny....ben elton, russel brand, and jo brand etc were almost as funny as having your dangling gonads crushed by a couple of have bricks
For reference I don't find right wing comics any better on the whole.
Both sides seems to come down to trying to score points off the other side rather than actually being funny and both sides only appeal to their political demographic
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
EXCLUSIVE: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, is on his way back to the U.S. to face criminal charges, sources tell ABC News
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
That sounds like an excerpt from the Knobbers' Gazette.
There we have a new policy for starmer, subsidies to install bunk beds in london to double occupancy....emailing it to Mistress Reeves as we speak
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
Yes, essentially.
I think it's quite hard for those middle earners at the moment.
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
Yes, essentially.
I think it's quite hard for those middle earners at the moment.
And it is about to get incomprehensibly worse, very quickly
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
Yes, essentially.
I think it's quite hard for those middle earners at the moment.
There are a lot of people in the country who were reasonably comfortable in the early 2000's that are now finding they are no longer as comfortably off as they were despite being in the same sort of job. For example in 2002 I got circa 45k....I was comfortable.....I went through changing jobs 4 times in the next 17 years.....salaries offered were still about 45k even for new jobs and that was at the top end of the pay offered for the position. 45k for a single person renting is no longer comfortable living. The first hike in pay scales offered I saw in the job market was when I joined my new company after brexit (post 2019). Real terms however I am still 36% down on pay instead of 60%
It says here that my local East Midlands Mainline station has been made accessible, with a footbridge and lifts.
Since 1994 when the barrow crossing was removed, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 with a wheelchair has been "catch a train to Nottingham / Chesterfield (depending on 1->2 or 2->1), use their lift, get another train back." That takes 60-90 minutes. It meant I could never use it to take mum anywhere at the end.
There have been at least 4 cycles of "money allocated, yes we will do it" that have never happened. And it says it only cost £6.75m.
I've had to cancel my evening walk to go and have a look. I'll post a piccie to seek views if it as ugly as everything else Network Rail do.
Now we need to deal with the mobility scooter ban on some parts of our rail system, and the wheelchair spaces that are too small for about 1/4 of wheel chairs in brand new trains, and the cycle storage that requires cycles to be hung off a hook on the wall at head height which are always obstructed by suitcases and are more difficult for women, John Bercow and BobbyJ and useless if you have lugggae on the bikes, and ....
Just happened to visit Stamford last week*, they have an intercom for the signaller to open the manual gates at the end of the platforms to access the barrow crossing.
(* purely to redo the line from Peterborough due to insertion of the dive-under towards Spalding (which I did last year).
It says here that my local East Midlands Mainline station has been made accessible, with a footbridge and lifts.
Since 1994 when the barrow crossing was removed, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 with a wheelchair has been "catch a train to Nottingham / Chesterfield (depending on 1->2 or 2->1), use their lift, get another train back." That takes 60-90 minutes. It meant I could never use it to take mum anywhere at the end.
There have been at least 4 cycles of "money allocated, yes we will do it" that have never happened. And it says it only cost £6.75m.
I've had to cancel my evening walk to go and have a look. I'll post a piccie to seek views if it as ugly as everything else Network Rail do.
Now we need to deal with the mobility scooter ban on some parts of our rail system, and the wheelchair spaces that are too small for about 1/4 of wheel chairs in brand new trains, and the cycle storage that requires cycles to be hung off a hook on the wall at head height which are always obstructed by suitcases and are more difficult for women, John Bercow and BobbyJ and useless if you have lugggae on the bikes, and ....
Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?
So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?
OK this site needs pepping up
What happens if White British people start voting like ethnic Chinese in Singapore? ie on racial and sectarian grounds?
I suggest this is not just possible, it is probable bordering on certain, as the multicultural state sinks under its own failings and contradictions ("no we don't have a blasphemy law, no we don't, we really don't, OK we do, but only for Islam")
That's going to be an unpleasantly polarised county, but it may be inevitable. Cf the second victory of Donald J Trump. He won because he got the White vote
I'm idly wondering - and idly suggesting a modest proposal - would it be cheaper to pay a load of brits to just camp out on the French beaches to block people using them for nefarious purposes. Just wall-to-wall Brits complaining about the weird foreign food. Towels. Tents. All paid for by Westminster.
Now that Brave Sir-Keir has almost sort of kind of got a deal to allow the youngsters to visit mainland Europe once in a while - he could pay them to just fanny about on the beaches. Earnest socialist students debating with earnest libertarian students. Poetry circles. Mad chemsex circles. Whatever.
If it was even £1 cheaper - it seems like a decent trade.
Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?
So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?
OK this site needs pepping up
What happens if White British people start voting like ethnic Chinese in Singapore? ie on racial and sectarian grounds?
Except they don't.
"The PAP also advocates nationalism not based on ethnocentrism, encouraging a united Singaporean identity while also recognising the main ethnic groups that make up the country.[5]"
I'm idly wondering - and idly suggesting a modest proposal - would it be cheaper to pay a load of brits to just camp out on the French beaches to block people using them for nefarious purposes. Just wall-to-wall Brits complaining about the weird foreign food. Towels. Tents. All paid for by Westminster.
Now that Brave Sir-Keir has almost sort of kind of got a deal to allow the youngsters to visit mainland Europe once in a while - he could pay them to just fanny about on the beaches. Earnest socialist students debating with earnest libertarian students. Poetry circles. Mad chemsex circles. Whatever.
If it was even £1 cheaper - it seems like a decent trade.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
Yes, essentially.
I think it's quite hard for those middle earners at the moment.
There are a lot of people in the country who were reasonably comfortable in the early 2000's that are now finding they are no longer as comfortably off as they were despite being in the same sort of job. For example in 2002 I got circa 45k....I was comfortable.....I went through changing jobs 4 times in the next 17 years.....salaries offered were still about 45k even for new jobs and that was at the top end of the pay offered for the position. 45k for a single person renting is no longer comfortable living. The first hike in pay scales offered I saw in the job market was when I joined my new company after brexit (post 2019). Real terms however I am still 36% down on pay instead of 60%
... Your definition of 'comfortable' must be quite something.
This from the Home Office is what my recent blog predicted - link next tweet - and under this sort of thing I'll shortly find myself referred to Prevent for extremism - while the police facilitate marches for a second Holocaust by people waving Hitler photos every week in London. Our regime's behaviour is increasingly indistinguishable from an entity trying to provoke racial violence. It's extremely sad & worrying but the majority in Parliament is for continuing the madness
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
What are the ratings like? I can't imagine enough people watch it anymore for it to affect voting intentions.
Haven't watched it in years, but then I don't watch the BBC or have a TV Licence.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
The Dems failed to have any answer to the cost of just living. They didn't even appear to recognize it was an issue because of...erm... some stats.
Starmer is not making that mistake. It may not work out but his cabinet at least recognize that is the #1 problem.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
👀 13 House Republicans who voted FOR the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are now asking the Senate to scale back and “mitigate” the negative impacts of their clean energy funding cuts. Letter is led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Maybe it requires a theory of mind, to understand that some people in this country (roughly half of them) are not right wing, and don’t see the world as right wing people do.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
It was an interesting question so thanks also. I still don't think it'll have the same electoral impact because adherents of Militant Islam are small in number (although maybe not in impact) and they don't make up an important caucus of one of only two viable political parties.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
If 90% want lower taxes, and 90% want more spent on public services, should both wishes be granted?
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Maybe it requires a theory of mind, to understand that some people in this country (roughly half of them) are not right wing, and don’t see the world as right wing people do.
Theory of mind: Inability to grasp that public policy making is not just private conduct writ large. That's probably a third of it. Policies are not just a menu from which you pick the stuff which sounds compassionate.
(Same criticism applies to the right, substituting something else for "compassionate".)
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB as such. It was also faintly ridiculous.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Maybe it requires a theory of mind, to understand that some people in this country (roughly half of them) are not right wing, and don’t see the world as right wing people do.
No, it's just that Hislop is a dickhead and should have been pensioned off years ago. Ordinary people were and are on Jenrick's side wrt low level crime and they're mostly glad that he did something to highlight how ridiculous it's become. That he's a target for the BBC shows how out of touch they are. I guess it gets them a couple of laughs from the people in the audience who love the smell of their own farts...
👀 13 House Republicans who voted FOR the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are now asking the Senate to scale back and “mitigate” the negative impacts of their clean energy funding cuts. Letter is led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
If 90% want lower taxes, and 90% want more spent on public services, should both wishes be granted?
Yes, why not? Easily done if you shift the balance of taxation a bit more onto the shoulders of tax evaders - including those for whom the last Tory government changed the rules and created loopholes, so that they became tax avoiders instead of tax evaders.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
Jeez, you're even more pessimistic than me!
What you outline could easily happen. What makes it worse is that the "progressive" side will increasingly police speech and activism to suppress any dissent from their failing orthodoxy. This is clearly happening, already. "Two Tier Kier" is a very viral meme because it is obviously true
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
If 90% want lower taxes, and 90% want more spent on public services, should both wishes be granted?
The inconsistency arises because the "what do you want" question was incomplete. Tax and spending have to be considered together
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
Jeez, you're even more pessimistic than me!
What you outline could easily happen. What makes it worse is that the "progressive" side will increasingly police speech and activism to suppress any dissent from their failing orthodoxy. This is clearly happening, already. "Two Tier Kier" is a very viral meme because it is obviously true
Grim
I don't think it comes down to race or skin colour. I think it will come down to values. In the end this country and many European ones will have to make the choice to accept or reject Islamic values and culture, I think the majority in this country probably reject it but may not be united enough to actually smash that rejection through parliament and the establishment to ensure free speech, action against criminal gangs associated with Muslims etc...
I don't ever see that happening under Labour but the Tories and Reform may end up cancelling each other out in 2029 and then by 2034 it will be really very difficult to roll back the creeping influence of Islam in the UK.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
Sorry but there is zero evidence for any of that. For a start, the Lib Dem vote is overwhelmingly white middle class so have nothing in common philosophically or electorally with Islamists. Secondly, Muslims don't vote in a bloc and at the last election many voted for independent candidates. I have no idea what you mean by 'progressive blacks' but a black woman is currently leader of the Conservative Party.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
Then why not mock Sadiq Khan who let it get this bad? Oh right, he's not right wing and it makes them feel uncomfortable.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
If you wanted to be sexist, surely DIY (or not) conversations are fitting for Dadsnet?
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB as such. It was also faintly ridiculous.
I used to watch HIGNFY religiously..now I wouldn't know what day/time it's on..💩
If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…
That has to be the highest quality straight sets tennis match ever.
Djokovic played really well and was so close to getting that third set . I find Sinner very robotic and just can’t really warm to him . I accept he’s a great player but hope Alcaraz wins on Sunday .
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
It is pathetic. Kill it off
Don't fret. When the beeb aren't showing HIGNFY, Dr Who or Strictly then they are showing an interview or appearance from Farage who will destroy them if elected as PM.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
Sorry but there is zero evidence for any of that. For a start, the Lib Dem vote is overwhelmingly white middle class so have nothing in common philosophically or electorally with Islamists. Secondly, Muslims don't vote in a bloc and at the last election many voted for independent candidates. I have no idea what you mean by 'progressive blacks' but a black woman is currently leader of the Conservative Party.
Liberal white guilt ridden middle classes whose worst nightmare is being seen as racist.
We've disagreed on this subject previously, I don't see any mileage in having the same conversation again. I'm not going to change your view and you won't change mine.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
It is pathetic. Kill it off
Is that true? I don't watch it unless a clip comes up on my phone.
If you're watching every single episode then fair enough.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
It was an interesting question so thanks also. I still don't think it'll have the same electoral impact because adherents of Militant Islam are small in number (although maybe not in impact) and they don't make up an important caucus of one of only two viable political parties.
Though sufficiently large in number that they have, what, 5 MPs now and form the opposition on Lancashire County Council. And getting larger in number all the time.
If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…
It would unite the right with the white working class vote very quickly, a very Trumpian coalition. Even in the US the only area where Trump still has wide support is immigration and the deportation programme. If anything the criticism from both blue collar whites and the right wing is that it hasn't been fast enough and the deportation rules should be made broader to allow for more illegals to be removed.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?
How about 'not living in somebody else's theocracy'?
HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.
If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…
In the novel Submission the French elite give in and become Muslims to avoid civil war.
I don’t like Eastenders but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about it
If we didn't pay for the BBC via a tax, AKA the TV licence, then you'd have a point
However we do, so you don't
And I am a supporter of the BBC, I think it is a genuine and salutary example of British soft power: it is remarkable how many non Brits associate the UK with the BBC - in a good way. I meet them all the time on my travels. Indeed "the BBC" is probably the third major aspect of "Britishness" that positively and palpably impinges on the world - alongside British sports (esp the EPL), and British music
But the BBC really needs to spruce its comedy output, and make some stuff that tackles the Left, Islam, Wokeness, etc. Man up!
I don’t like Eastenders but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about it
If we didn't pay for the BBC via a tax, AKA the TV licence, then you'd have a point
However we do, so you don't
And I am a supporter of the BBC, I think it is a genuine and salutary example of British soft power: it is remarkable how many non Brits associate the UK with the BBC - in a good way. I meet them all the time on my travels. Indeed "the BBC" is probably the third major aspect of "Britishness" that positively and palpably impinges on the world - alongside British sports (esp the EPL), and British music
But the BBC really needs to spruce its comedy output, and make some stuff that tackles the Left, Islam, Wokeness, etc. Man up!
I pay the licence fee but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about the programmes I don’t like
If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…
In the novel Submission the French elite give in and become Muslims to avoid civil war.
Which may be seen as prophetic in the future. France has an even bigger issue than we do.
HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.
That and also I think Merton got lazy, quitting the show for a series at one point before getting lured back. His surreal riffs of the 90s were part of what made the show, and he hasn't done any good ones in decades.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?
How about 'not living in somebody else's theocracy'?
Also, can we let women swim without shrouds, thanks
HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.
That and also I think Merton got lazy, quitting the show for a series at one point before getting lured back. His surreal riffs of the 90s were part of what made the show, and he hasn't done any good ones in decades.
Grumpy old men think everything was better in the “good old days”. In other news the Pope is catholic
That has to be the highest quality straight sets tennis match ever.
Djokovic played really well and was so close to getting that third set . I find Sinner very robotic and just can’t really warm to him . I accept he’s a great player but hope Alcaraz wins on Sunday .
It should be an epic final. Alcaraz usually beats Sinner but I marginally favour Sinner this time. I agree Alcaraz is the more artistic player.
I don’t like Eastenders but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about it
If we didn't pay for the BBC via a tax, AKA the TV licence, then you'd have a point
However we do, so you don't
And I am a supporter of the BBC, I think it is a genuine and salutary example of British soft power: it is remarkable how many non Brits associate the UK with the BBC - in a good way. I meet them all the time on my travels. Indeed "the BBC" is probably the third major aspect of "Britishness" that positively and palpably impinges on the world - alongside British sports (esp the EPL), and British music
But the BBC really needs to spruce its comedy output, and make some stuff that tackles the Left, Islam, Wokeness, etc. Man up!
I pay the licence fee but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about the programmes I don’t like
No, instead you come on an obscure politics blog so you can bitch about the people who are bitching about the programmes they don't like
HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.
That and also I think Merton got lazy, quitting the show for a series at one point before getting lured back. His surreal riffs of the 90s were part of what made the show, and he hasn't done any good ones in decades.
True. Even with a permanent presenter, given how long it's gone on it would ultimately still have gone stale anyway, just maybe not as long ago as it did.
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
It is pathetic. Kill it off
HIGNFY was brilliant for the first 10 or 15 years with Deayton presenting, mainly because he mocked everyone regardless of whether they were left or right.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?
Remaining in charge and protecting their privileges.
"Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent Online guidance says ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor" (£)
I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.
Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.
Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.
If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
It is pathetic. Kill it off
HIGNFY was brilliant for the first 10 or 15 years with Deayton presenting, mainly because he mocked everyone regardless of whether they were left or right.
Yes, he mocked Hislop and Merton as they mocked him. Which made it often quite electrifying to watch
TBH I haven't watched an episode in years. I tuned in a couple of seasons ago for one episode, for about 15 minutes, and it was so desperately cringe and unfunny my scrotum LITERALLY tried to hide up my butthole, our of shameful embarrassment for all concerned. I am sorry for the mental image, but I have to be honest - that is what physically happened
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
"Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent Online guidance says ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor" (£)
As @Leon said just now, the establishment will try to use the levers of power to outlaw dissent against their agenda. Kemi is right to look at lawfare, but she also needs to look at the establishment using the law to clamp down on dissent and free speech too.
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.
At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
Sorry but there is zero evidence for any of that. For a start, the Lib Dem vote is overwhelmingly white middle class so have nothing in common philosophically or electorally with Islamists. Secondly, Muslims don't vote in a bloc and at the last election many voted for independent candidates. I have no idea what you mean by 'progressive blacks' but a black woman is currently leader of the Conservative Party.
Liberal white guilt ridden middle classes whose worst nightmare is being seen as racist.
We've disagreed on this subject previously, I don't see any mileage in having the same conversation again. I'm not going to change your view and you won't change mine.
Well if you gave me some evidence that the kind of progressive alliance you describe actually exists then you might change my mind. Labour won the last election mostly because of the votes of people in Northern seats who are deeply suspicious of Islam and immigration in general. The Lib Dems won their seats mostly because of the votes of well to do white voters who have nothing in common with radical Islam or progressive racial theories. Maybe the four Green Party MPs and the handful of pro Gaza independents were elected with the kind of coalition you suggest but that's electorally insignificant.
HIGNFY is a relic from a country that no longer exists. It's from the same era as the Big Breakfast with Chris Evans and Gaby Roslin and it's impossible to imagine a show like that being made now.
Comments
The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”
* that’s how long my book pile is…
Ask Boris Johnson what happened when he 'seceded'.
Or any other US citizen who has never been there, but still has to do a tax return every year.
Great book though.
And it slightly annoyed you and @Foxy
So that’s a win win
It says here that my local East Midlands Mainline station has been made accessible, with a footbridge and lifts.
Since 1994 when the barrow crossing was removed, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 with a wheelchair has been "catch a train to Nottingham / Chesterfield (depending on 1->2 or 2->1), use their lift, get another train back." That takes 60-90 minutes. It meant I could never use it to take mum anywhere at the end.
There have been at least 4 cycles of "money allocated, yes we will do it" that have never happened. And it says it only cost £6.75m.
I've had to cancel my evening walk to go and have a look. I'll post a piccie to seek views if it as ugly as everything else Network Rail do.
Now we need to deal with the mobility scooter ban on some parts of our rail system, and the wheelchair spaces that are too small for about 1/4 of wheel chairs in brand new trains, and the cycle storage that requires cycles to be hung off a hook on the wall at head height which are always obstructed by suitcases and are more difficult for women, John Bercow and BobbyJ and useless if you have lugggae on the bikes, and ....
https://alfreton.spiritof.uk/alfreton-train-station-completes-step-free-accessibility-upgrades/
Alexei Sayle was funny....ben elton, russel brand, and jo brand etc were almost as funny as having your dangling gonads crushed by a couple of have bricks
Both sides seems to come down to trying to score points off the other side rather than actually being funny and both sides only appeal to their political demographic
Are you sure that our hero has not changed his affiliation, and is headed for Dulwich?
EXCLUSIVE: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, is on his way back to the U.S. to face criminal charges, sources tell ABC News
https://x.com/ABC/status/1931065257289478396
So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?
I think it's quite hard for those middle earners at the moment.
Fucking massive lol. I literally predicted this only four days ago:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-wants-more-uk-money-to-intercept-small-boats-h3nv5287d
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-spending-review-nhs-8wxtp8b7p
We are basically all overweight, or obese, the savings would be enormous - and would save the NHS, and would far outweigh (yes yes) the costs
(* purely to redo the line from Peterborough due to insertion of the dive-under towards Spalding (which I did last year).
What happens if White British people start voting like ethnic Chinese in Singapore? ie on racial and sectarian grounds?
I suggest this is not just possible, it is probable bordering on certain, as the multicultural state sinks under its own failings and contradictions ("no we don't have a blasphemy law, no we don't, we really don't, OK we do, but only for Islam")
That's going to be an unpleasantly polarised county, but it may be inevitable. Cf the second victory of Donald J Trump. He won because he got the White vote
See race war bollocks.
Log off PB.
Now that Brave Sir-Keir has almost sort of kind of got a deal to allow the youngsters to visit mainland Europe once in a while - he could pay them to just fanny about on the beaches. Earnest socialist students debating with earnest libertarian students. Poetry circles. Mad chemsex circles. Whatever.
If it was even £1 cheaper - it seems like a decent trade.
"The PAP also advocates nationalism not based on ethnocentrism, encouraging a united Singaporean identity while also recognising the main ethnic groups that make up the country.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Action_Party
2024 Presidential Election
Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%
White Men: Trump garnered 60%
White Women: Trump received 53%
White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%
White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%
Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else
Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome
This from the Home Office is what my recent blog predicted - link next tweet - and under this sort of thing I'll shortly find myself referred to Prevent for extremism - while the police facilitate marches for a second Holocaust by people waving Hitler photos every week in London.
Our regime's behaviour is increasingly indistinguishable from an entity trying to provoke racial violence. It's extremely sad & worrying but the majority in Parliament is for continuing the madness
I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not
So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time
Haven't watched it in years, but then I don't watch the BBC or have a TV Licence.
Starmer is not making that mistake. It may not work out but his cabinet at least recognize that is the #1 problem.
We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.
👀 13 House Republicans who voted FOR the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are now asking the Senate to scale back and “mitigate” the negative impacts of their clean energy funding cuts. Letter is led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va.
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1931059193114767664
(Same criticism applies to the right, substituting something else for "compassionate".)
It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB as such. It was also faintly ridiculous.
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1931065342442561662
What you outline could easily happen. What makes it worse is that the "progressive" side will increasingly police speech and activism to suppress any dissent from their failing orthodoxy. This is clearly happening, already. "Two Tier Kier" is a very viral meme because it is obviously true
Grim
I don't ever see that happening under Labour but the Tories and Reform may end up cancelling each other out in 2029 and then by 2034 it will be really very difficult to roll back the creeping influence of Islam in the UK.
1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)
2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)
3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why
It is pathetic. Kill it off
We've disagreed on this subject previously, I don't see any mileage in having the same conversation again. I'm not going to change your view and you won't change mine.
If you're watching every single episode then fair enough.
And getting larger in number all the time.
However we do, so you don't
And I am a supporter of the BBC, I think it is a genuine and salutary example of British soft power: it is remarkable how many non Brits associate the UK with the BBC - in a good way. I meet them all the time on my travels. Indeed "the BBC" is probably the third major aspect of "Britishness" that positively and palpably impinges on the world - alongside British sports (esp the EPL), and British music
But the BBC really needs to spruce its comedy output, and make some stuff that tackles the Left, Islam, Wokeness, etc. Man up!
Kristi Noem less than a month ago: "There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again."
(No matter what happens, bringing him back to the US is a climbdown for the administration)
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqxpmqmqg223
We need a new level of the Metaverse
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
“Fun projects”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1931062986774634654
Is that Trump blinking when threatened with a finding of contempt by Judge Boasberg?
Online guidance says ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation
Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/
TBH I haven't watched an episode in years. I tuned in a couple of seasons ago for one episode, for about 15 minutes, and it was so desperately cringe and unfunny my scrotum LITERALLY tried to hide up my butthole, our of shameful embarrassment for all concerned. I am sorry for the mental image, but I have to be honest - that is what physically happened
Haven't seen it since