Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Would Labour had an even bigger majority without this front page and strategy by the SNP?

135

Comments

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,114
    edited June 6
    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…
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636
    edited June 6

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

    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'. :wink:

    Or any other US citizen who has never been there, but still has to do a tax return every year.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    Well Djokovic is playing great here but probably losing in straight sets. It's man v machine.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,393
    tlg86 said:

    How long before Dawn French issues a grovelling apology?

    https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779

    I watched it and didn't understand it.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    edited June 6

    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.

    Great book though.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,805
    edited June 6

    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
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    By the way this Sinner/Djokovic knockabout is fantastic.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    I'm buying window blinds for my flat

    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.
    Not his best hijack.
    Nonetheless successful. And also useful

    And it slightly annoyed you and @Foxy

    So that’s a win win
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    kinabalu said:

    Well Djokovic is playing great here but probably losing in straight sets. It's man v machine.

    I can't see him winning, but four sets if he's lucky. Still crazy he's 5th in the world at 38.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I'm buying window blinds for my flat

    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.
    Now that's an image I didn't want in my head...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    carnforth said:

    kinabalu said:

    Well Djokovic is playing great here but probably losing in straight sets. It's man v machine.

    I can't see him winning, but four sets if he's lucky. Still crazy he's 5th in the world at 38.
    Yes. And he's number 3 really. Only Sinner and Alcaraz are better.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,812

    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…

    Wig and a donner, the American dream.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,161
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636
    edited June 6
    I'm in shock.

    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/
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,805

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,805
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636
    edited June 6

    Leon said:

    I'm buying window blinds for my flat

    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.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis
    That sounds like an excerpt from the Knobbers' Gazette.

    Are you sure that our hero has not changed his affiliation, and is headed for Dulwich?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,705
    @ABC

    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
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,521
    Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?

    So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,805
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    I'm buying window blinds for my flat

    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.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis
    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
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,521

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,521
    Oh. What a surprise!

    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584

    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
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,521
    The health budget, which stood at £178 billion as Labour took office, will exceed £230 billion by the next election.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-spending-review-nhs-8wxtp8b7p
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,805
    edited June 6

    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%
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584

    The health budget, which stood at £178 billion as Labour took office, will exceed £230 billion by the next election.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-spending-review-nhs-8wxtp8b7p

    Give every Briton Mounjaro injections for life

    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

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,415
    MattW said:

    I'm in shock.

    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/

    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).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,415

    Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?

    So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?

    Despite the 75% Chinese ethnic majority, the English language is spoken at home by nearly 50% of Singaporeans.

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,043
    MattW said:

    I'm in shock.

    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/

    I can't see DuraAce hanging his aero rims on one of those nasty metal hooks.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584

    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

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,583
    Log on to PB.

    See race war bollocks.

    Log off PB.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,860

    Oh. What a surprise!

    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

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,415
    edited June 6
    Leon said:

    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]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Action_Party
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,860
    tlg86 said:

    How long before Dawn French issues a grovelling apology?

    https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779

    Is there some context? It just seems to be babbling and then saying 'No'?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    ohnotnow said:

    Oh. What a surprise!

    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

    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.
    Chavs on jetskis another possibility.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    edited June 6
    Some data to chew over:


    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
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,860
    Pagan2 said:

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,557
    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1931072793161900331

    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
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 984
    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148
    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,705
    @sahilkapur

    👀 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
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,752
    MaxPB said:

    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.

    Have I got establishment views for you.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,539
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 984
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,072
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    edited June 6
    TimS said:

    MaxPB said:

    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".)
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,884
    edited June 6
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    TimS said:

    MaxPB said:

    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...
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    Scott_xP said:

    @sahilkapur

    👀 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

    This is weird. Curious why he called the Senate the House of Lords?

    https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1931065342442561662
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,971

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,073

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    scampi25 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,884
    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    That has to be the highest quality straight sets tennis match ever.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148
    Wow. Garcia is back on US soil.

  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 984
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    I think @MaxPB's point is that

    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
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148
    Someone finally left CECOT.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636

    Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    I'm buying window blinds for my flat

    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?
    Does your SWMBO have a view on this question?
  • SonofContrarianSonofContrarian Posts: 176
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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..💩
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,482
    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…
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,586
    kinabalu said:

    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 .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    I think @MaxPB's point is that

    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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,482
    I don’t like Eastenders but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about it
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Stereodog said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,884
    edited June 6
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    I think @MaxPB's point is that

    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,249
    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    They take the piss out of Starmer, don't they?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,249
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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'?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,984
    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    edited June 6

    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!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,482
    Leon said:

    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
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109

    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.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,602

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,482
    Fishing said:

    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
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,705
    @atrupar.com‬

    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
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,577
    nico67 said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584

    Leon said:

    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

    We need a new level of the Metaverse

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,148
    Satire is more dead than a Norwegian Blue latest:


    Republicans against Trump
    @RpsAgainstTrump

    “Fun projects”

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1931062986774634654
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,984
    Fishing said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,393
    edited June 6
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    I think @MaxPB's point is that

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636

    Wow. Garcia is back on US soil.

    What happened?

    Is that Trump blinking when threatened with a finding of contempt by Judge Boasberg?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,806
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,393
    edited June 6
    "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" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,584
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    I think @MaxPB's point is that

    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

    Haven't seen it since
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,636
    edited June 6
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    carnforth said:

    Kemi:



    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

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NlFWh7Sz8
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,109
    Andy_JS said:

    "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" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/

    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.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 984
    MaxPB said:

    Stereodog said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Some data to chew over:


    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

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,557
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.