Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Poor little government, how spineless they are if they cant cope with a footballer expressing his views. His campaign won because it resonated with people and Tory backbench MPs to the point the government reflected the publics view.
If he had campaigned for footballers to be able to drive at 120mph as they have faster cars and better reaction times than the public, however good his twitter feed was it would have absolutely zero traction.
He won the case on the arguments, and that is the only way he could win and influence government policy. He cant simply dictate it to the govt, that suggestion is absurd.
But he has. I go back to the point before. Whether you support his actions seems to depend on his cause, not the principle. Many of the same people kicking up a stink over Jendrick and Desmond seem to be the same ones praising Rashford for his stance. But it is two sides of the same coin. You just agree with one of the causes and not with the other.
Am I the only person who thinks Keir is actually quite radical even compared to just five years ago?
The same people who pushed Burnham in the leadership contest into second place by supporting Corbyn...
Probably right but it's a little depressing that one of the most egregious and unpleasant politicians most of us have known is getting a virtual free ride and the only person taking him on is the Mayor of Manchester. People want to see the leader of the opposition opposing. It's not like he's short of material. Even the usually flabby Monbiot has written him a word perfect script.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
I still can't get over how big of a disaster the government are overseeing in the North. The government borrowed £37bn in September, I'm honestly not sure what difference an extra £65m is going to make.
The chancellor is clearly unfit for office and has no grasp of the big picture. He would also be unfit for the office of PM, but still a net improvement over Boris. I honestly can't think of a single politician in Parliament who I'd want as PM, they're all useless.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
He doesnt make any decisions, that is solely the job of the elected govt (although they have delegated it without scrutiny to Cummings).
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
I think your answer highlights the problem: engaging with them on economics is looking to find something that "resonates" but engaging with them on cultural messages is "playing up" to them. It's clear you find only one of those sets of concerns as legitimate.
The Tories have not created a wedge issue of statues, which didn't exist until 6 months ago. No-one from the centre-right involved in or agitating for any to come down in order to 'spark' a conflict. I think the real objection is that the Tories are now putting up a counter-argument to left-modernist views on things like white privilege, "racist" statues, gender recognition, and these views are indeed in line with many in the working class, and indeed plenty in the middle class, who see it for the nonsense it really is.
This is both unexpected, and unwelcomed, from those who've had it their own way for far too long, so is labelled as them starting a culture war when it's really just expanding the field of political debate.
But there is white privilege and there are racist statues, these issues need addressing and are not nonsense.
(1) I don't accept the term 'white privilege' - I do accept that in Western countries many white people haven't experienced racism in the way some minorities have. For that, I think it's good both listen to each other's point of view and try and understand it better. It's called talking. White privilege is an unhelpful convection that will proof entirely counterproductive - it straight way puts people onto the defensive as, actually, few white people have experienced privilege in their lives. It therefore leads to people disengaging and polarising. The language we use is very important, and we shouldn't racially finger point.
I think I can mostly agree with this from a left-wing point of view.
I accept that white privilege exists, if by privilege we are talking about a relative advantage.
I do not think that the language is at all helpful. In the vernacular privilege is viewed as an absolute - someone is privileged (ie a toff) or they are not.
The vast majority of people in the present economy are not privileged because they're in the position of having to sell their labour to keep a roof over their heads. Telling them that they're privileged is stupid nonsense almost designed to lose their support, even if it is true with a careful academic definition of the word.
Identity politics is such a dead end for the Left. The Left is about uniting everyone who is oppressed by the Capitalist class to stand together. Now, sure, as you encourage people to recognise and oppose class oppression they will naturally also recognise oppression on the basis of gender, race, etc. And as the Left is about helping those who are oppressed the consequence of providing support is obvious - but to turn that story of shared oppression on its head, to be continually identifying elements of privilege that divide people, is self-defeating
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
Rashford isn't making decisions. He's a private citizen entitled to campaign just as anyone else private is.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
Slightly more expensive than feeding them I would think
Food is now cheaper than at any point in the last 50 years. IF you shop wisely its amazing what £20 will get you. There is no excuse for parents not to feed their children. There is a very generous benefits system in this country for those not working or on low incomes.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
He doesnt make any decisions, that is solely the job of the elected govt (although they have delegated it without scrutiny to Cummings).
Correct. The Government does. But if Marcus R was sweeping the streets and making the same arguments, do you think the Govt would be changing their policy based solely on the strengths of his arguments?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Poor little government, how spineless they are if they cant cope with a footballer expressing his views. His campaign won because it resonated with people and Tory backbench MPs to the point the government reflected the publics view.
If he had campaigned for footballers to be able to drive at 120mph as they have faster cars and better reaction times than the public, however good his twitter feed was it would have absolutely zero traction.
He won the case on the arguments, and that is the only way he could win and influence government policy. He cant simply dictate it to the govt, that suggestion is absurd.
But he has. I go back to the point before. Whether you support his actions seems to depend on his cause, not the principle. Many of the same people kicking up a stink over Jendrick and Desmond seem to be the same ones praising Rashford for his stance. But it is two sides of the same coin. You just agree with one of the causes and not with the other.
What was Desmonds cause? Him wanting to pay £50m less tax? Not really a cause.
It doesnt matter whether I agree with it, I have as close to zero influence as makes no difference. For Rashford to be influential he had to persuade millions of people, and most importantly backbench Tory elected MPs. He can only do that where most of the country agree with him.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
I agree, but it's not Rashford's fault the government are giving in to his bleating.
They should tell him to sod off and get J-Z or whatever he is called to find another social justice cause for him to blindly follow.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
The sort of post which makes me want to take a year long break from PB. Can't you comment on the Daily Mail website? Think of all those likes...
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
Rashford isn't making decisions. He's a private citizen entitled to campaign just as anyone else private is.
The Government and MPs decide, not Rashford.
Effectively he is. MR campaigns for something, uses a social media campaign, gets what he wants.
As I said, it is the equivalent of wealthy donors using their influence.
How many people does G Manchester have. How much would the £65 million pro rata to every other Tier 3 hotspot cost, how much nationwide ?
£1.6bn spread over a few months. It's a nothing amount of money and Andy Burnham is right, we shouldn't be ordering businesses to close and then providing basically no support.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Ensuring kids are fed, so can focus on school and get as good an education as will be possible in trying circumstances is the only way to break the long term poverty trap.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
The sort of post which makes me want to take a year long break from PB. Can't you comment on the Daily Mail website? Think of all those likes...
Sure describing reality means you must belong on the Daily Mail.
Do you know of or have you ever actually worked with any of these families?
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
The sort of post which makes me want to take a year long break from PB. Can't you comment on the Daily Mail website? Think of all those likes...
It is concerning that people can supposedly not afford food but can afford fags.
What the answer to that is I don't know. More money is not always the answer.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
So basically you are free to campaign on whatever you wish, but not if there's a chance that you might actually see your campaign bear fruit?
Interesting comment in the daily Staggers email from Stephen Bush:
"I find it hard to conceive of a situation where, eventually, the financial protections available in areas under the heaviest lockdowns aren't extended everywhere. As Tortoise's Chris Cook explains , the coronavirus economic shock extends well beyond parts of the country that have escaped major outbreaks. Devon and Cornwall have low levels of coronavirus transmission - but that is because they also have lower levels of tourism, and because their farms have lower levels of demand. If I can't go to St John's with my friend, then British farmers can't sell their goods to the restaurant. Increased amounts of homecooking does not sufficiently replace the lost demand.
Regional lockdowns allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the psychological and physical costs of lockdown. They do not allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the economic costs of lockdown.
Added to that, because our great cities are net importers of young people and workers, if your financial support package makes it impossible or simply too painful for those workers to remain where they are, they will return to their family homes - and at least some of them will bring the novel coronavirus with them."
There is a logic to matching responses to local conditions, but the current mess in England isn't due just to Government incompetence. Having different responses in different places is arbitrary, unfair, confusing and possibly not that effective. There is a cost to avoiding blanket measures in other words.
In my view 50/50 which is the better approach.
And that is the truth of it. The government has totally failed in its communication and large parts of the country are confused about what the rules are and where they apply. The endless rebranding has been part of this, but it's deeper than that. This is a Vote Leave government, and one of the things that Vote Leave did very successfully was segmenting the messaging so different people came to the same conclusion for wildly different reasons. But such temporary coalitions are necessarily fissile and perhaps not possible in all policy areas. But most of all, it's a guerrilla tactic, which works much better when you aren't in power. This geographic, temporal, and branding fragmentation reflects the mindset of the leadership, and that mindset isn't working. We need much better focus.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Ensuring kids are fed, so can focus on school and get as good an education as will be possible in trying circumstances is the only way to break the long term poverty trap.
It's not the only way. Not taxing the poorest as much so they can keep more of what they earn would help as well.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
He doesnt make any decisions, that is solely the job of the elected govt (although they have delegated it without scrutiny to Cummings).
Correct. The Government does. But if Marcus R was sweeping the streets and making the same arguments, do you think the Govt would be changing their policy based solely on the strengths of his arguments?
He knows more about a life akin to sweeping the streets than you or I, he grew up in poverty. Not enough of our politicians are from those kind of backgrounds, perhaps if we stopped being so deferential to Eton old boys that could change.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
I'm assuming you stand against all corporate lobbying efforts, fund raising dinners, 'golden circle' meetings of the wealthiest donors etc. All of these are 'pay to play' and all disproportionately influence party politics when compared to a chat or letter to the well worn constituency MP.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Ensuring kids are fed, so can focus on school and get as good an education as will be possible in trying circumstances is the only way to break the long term poverty trap.
It's not the only way. Not taxing the poorest as much so they can keep more of what they earn would help as well.
Agreed, but if the parents are neglectful and addicts as suggested in the post I was responding to (this is certainly not typical of those in poverty but to be fair does happen as well), then giving the parents more money is very inefficient compared to improving the future prospects of the child through education, which requires food and nutrition.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Ensuring kids are fed, so can focus on school and get as good an education as will be possible in trying circumstances is the only way to break the long term poverty trap.
It's not the only way. Not taxing the poorest as much so they can keep more of what they earn would help as well.
Let's be honest, the ones that don't prioritise food for their children are the least likely to be working.
But yes reducing tax on the working poor is a good idea.
It's a bit of a surprise to see an article like this is one of our main newspapers.
"I'm almost starting to think this whole pandemic really is a conspiracy Our continuing oppressive response to a virus that almost every human survives is making less and less sense
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
So Rashford can campaign but if his campaign starts being successful he has to stop?
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
That leads to great outcomes. Increased suicides, crime and depression for decades to come. Wonderful idea.
Whilst leaving kids with parents that spend all their benefit money on booze and fags rather than feeding them is a great idea.
Ensuring kids are fed, so can focus on school and get as good an education as will be possible in trying circumstances is the only way to break the long term poverty trap.
It's not the only way. Not taxing the poorest as much so they can keep more of what they earn would help as well.
Agreed, but if the parents are neglectful and addicts as suggested in the post I was responding to (this is certainly not typical of those in poverty but to be fair does happen as well), then giving the parents more money is very inefficient compared to improving the future prospects of the child through education, which requires food and nutrition.
Agreed. Even though we approach politics differently we can see common sense here.
SAGE actually said it (or at least a series of lockdowns) would probably be successful in bringing down or slowing the level of spread, at least on a temporary basis (which is obvious), but also said that all advice needs to be weighed against the economic and social costs of following that advice. Something that was reiterated by Vallance yesterday.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
You’re hilarious. Imagine getting angry about a footballer talking about feeding children. Christ.
"Early voters in Texas have already exceeded the total number of people statewide who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 — and the election is still 14 days away."
This is absolutely crazy, maybe time to lump on the Democrats in Texas. I wonder if the number of votes cast in Texas will top the total number of registered voters in the state.
His argument is rather flawed...how does an area get out of T3...well we look at the evidence after a month to see if it is working...i can tell you T3 doesn't work, you should instead have a 2 week circuit breaker (which is essentially the same as T3 and after which you won't know if it worked).
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
You're onto something here.
"The Night They Drove Coal Dixie Down (but we kept on singing!): The romanticisation of the miners' strike and the working class generally by the British middle class Left."
This is a book I've always wanted to write if I could do more than titles.
But now it's the Right doing it and it's in a far more pernicious fashion. Because what they at the same time caricature and celebrate is not the collectivist solidarity and sense of community of these salt-of-the-earths but the rather unevolved - or in PC speak "traditional" - social values and attitudes that some of them have.
I hate it - and I hate even more that in recent times it's working. June 23rd. Dec 12th. I won't add "etc" since I hope the tide is going out on all this crap, starting with Nov 3rd.
Excellent comment. As someone who believes a liberal world order is a good and far better than the alternatives, I think my side screwed up by not bothering to make to make the case for multiculturalism, globalisation etc and for not reaching out to everyone to include them in the benefits of these things. We ignored them and unsurprisingly they are receptive to the snake-oil of Farage, Johnson and the New Conservative Party that intend to con them.
Thanks. It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this. I'm quite optimistic that once this current wave of "right populism" has run its course - i.e. is revealed as being in the interests of a reactionary elite - we will get onto this path. Covid helps, I think.
His argument is rather flawed...how does an area get out of T3...well we look at the evidence after a month to see if it is working...i can tell you T3 doesn't work, you should instead have a 2 week circuit breaker (which is essentially the same as T3 and after which you won't know if it worked).
There's a big difference between T3 and circuit breaker. Pubs, restaurants, social mixing, non-essential businesses, non-essential travel all stop under circuit breaker. Circuit breaker is also national.
In terms of whether it worked - I think a comparison between Wales and England in 4-6 weeks will be a reasonably fair natural experiment.
His argument is rather flawed...how does an area get out of T3...well we look at the evidence after a month to see if it is working...i can tell you T3 doesn't work, you should instead have a 2 week circuit breaker (which is essentially the same as T3 and after which you won't know if it worked).
I missed PMQs this week, did Starmer go on this nonsense and not the North or the 80% furlough question or even Rashford's campaign?
Honestly he had an open net when it comes to only giving 67% of Minimum Wage to people banned by law from working.
I'm beginning to regain my confidence that Starmer will be beatable next election.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
MPs are in the top 10% of earners, even in London.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this.
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
I think your answer highlights the problem: engaging with them on economics is looking to find something that "resonates" but engaging with them on cultural messages is "playing up" to them. It's clear you find only one of those sets of concerns as legitimate.
The Tories have not created a wedge issue of statues, which didn't exist until 6 months ago. No-one from the centre-right involved in or agitating for any to come down in order to 'spark' a conflict. I think the real objection is that the Tories are now putting up a counter-argument to left-modernist views on things like white privilege, "racist" statues, gender recognition, and these views are indeed in line with many in the working class, and indeed plenty in the middle class, who see it for the nonsense it really is.
This is both unexpected, and unwelcomed, from those who've had it their own way for far too long, so is labelled as them starting a culture war when it's really just expanding the field of political debate.
But there is white privilege and there are racist statues, these issues need addressing and are not nonsense.
(1) I don't accept the term 'white privilege' - I do accept that in Western countries many white people haven't experienced racism in the way some minorities have. For that, I think it's good both listen to each other's point of view and try and understand it better. It's called talking. White privilege is an unhelpful convection that will proof entirely counterproductive - it straight way puts people onto the defensive as, actually, few white people have experienced privilege in their lives. It therefore leads to people disengaging and polarising. The language we use is very important, and we shouldn't racially finger point.
I think I can mostly agree with this from a left-wing point of view.
I accept that white privilege exists, if by privilege we are talking about a relative advantage.
I do not think that the language is at all helpful. In the vernacular privilege is viewed as an absolute - someone is privileged (ie a toff) or they are not.
The vast majority of people in the present economy are not privileged because they're in the position of having to sell their labour to keep a roof over their heads. Telling them that they're privileged is stupid nonsense almost designed to lose their support, even if it is true with a careful academic definition of the word.
Identity politics is such a dead end for the Left. The Left is about uniting everyone who is oppressed by the Capitalist class to stand together. Now, sure, as you encourage people to recognise and oppose class oppression they will naturally also recognise oppression on the basis of gender, race, etc. And as the Left is about helping those who are oppressed the consequence of providing support is obvious - but to turn that story of shared oppression on its head, to be continually identifying elements of privilege that divide people, is self-defeating
Yes, I'm not of the Left - as I'm sure you know - but I agree with most of this.
His argument is rather flawed...how does an area get out of T3...well we look at the evidence after a month to see if it is working...i can tell you T3 doesn't work, you should instead have a 2 week circuit breaker (which is essentially the same as T3 and after which you won't know if it worked).
I missed PMQs this week, did Starmer go on this nonsense and not the North or the 80% furlough question or even Rashford's campaign?
Honestly he had an open net when it comes to only giving 67% of Minimum Wage to people banned by law from working.
I'm beginning to regain my confidence that Starmer will be beatable next election.
Starmer goes on the detail. Johnson ignores and goes on the big picture. No-score draw each session.
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
You're onto something here.
"The Night They Drove Coal Dixie Down (but we kept on singing!): The romanticisation of the miners' strike and the working class generally by the British middle class Left."
This is a book I've always wanted to write if I could do more than titles.
But now it's the Right doing it and it's in a far more pernicious fashion. Because what they at the same time caricature and celebrate is not the collectivist solidarity and sense of community of these salt-of-the-earths but the rather unevolved - or in PC speak "traditional" - social values and attitudes that some of them have.
I hate it - and I hate even more that in recent times it's working. June 23rd. Dec 12th. I won't add "etc" since I hope the tide is going out on all this crap, starting with Nov 3rd.
Excellent comment. As someone who believes a liberal world order is a good and far better than the alternatives, I think my side screwed up by not bothering to make to make the case for multiculturalism, globalisation etc and for not reaching out to everyone to include them in the benefits of these things. We ignored them and unsurprisingly they are receptive to the snake-oil of Farage, Johnson and the New Conservative Party that intend to con them.
Thanks. It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this. I'm quite optimistic that once this current wave of "right populism" has run its course - i.e. is revealed as being in the interests of a reactionary elite - we will get onto this path. Covid helps, I think.
The problem is we are now a knowledge economy not a production economy, in the West that benefits the top 10% or so by IQ who can do professional and managerial jobs, work in IT or do high tech engineering and manufacture, it is less beneficial for the remainder some of whose fathers will have done reasonably well paid mass manufacturing jobs but are now working in relatively lower paid retail, hospitality or warehouse and delivery jobs.
For the developing world though globalisation has clearly been beneficial as much of the mass manufacturing which was not automated has now moved to them where the labour costs are cheaper, same with call centre jobs many are getting in India now
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
MPs are in the top 10% of earners, even in London.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
PMs are very comfortably in the top 1% of lifetime earners, when you consider their post office earnings. How much of that is down to their talent (or otherwise) and how much is a payoff for influencing all current and future PMs I shall leave to the reader to decide.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
MPs are in the top 10% of earners, even in London.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
If members of the Cabinet were really responsible, then surelymost of them would have resigned by now. If they had any sense of decency and shame, that is.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Poor little government, how spineless they are if they cant cope with a footballer expressing his views. His campaign won because it resonated with people and Tory backbench MPs to the point the government reflected the publics view.
If he had campaigned for footballers to be able to drive at 120mph as they have faster cars and better reaction times than the public, however good his twitter feed was it would have absolutely zero traction.
He won the case on the arguments, and that is the only way he could win and influence government policy. He cant simply dictate it to the govt, that suggestion is absurd.
But he has. I go back to the point before. Whether you support his actions seems to depend on his cause, not the principle. Many of the same people kicking up a stink over Jendrick and Desmond seem to be the same ones praising Rashford for his stance. But it is two sides of the same coin. You just agree with one of the causes and not with the other.
If someone wants to make the case on Twitter for 10% tax on the rich then, sure, I'll disagree with them. That's the nature of public debate.
The government can then decide whether to cut taxes to 10%. If they think that there's more public support than opposition for doing that, or that it's right in principle despite public opposition, then I'll oppose that too - but since the debate has happened in public, and no-one used their wealth to improperly buy access to that debate (by paying for a seat at dinner next to a Cabinet minister), then what's the harm? Public debate influencing politicians, what a shocking outrage.
If the public feel that a government is too easily persuaded by a couple of tweets to change policy then they can subsequently vote for a different one.
I think it's a good thing for more people to be involved in public debate of politics.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
MPs are in the top 10% of earners, even in London.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
PMs are very comfortably in the top 1% of lifetime earners, when you consider their post office earnings. How much of that is down to their talent (or otherwise) and how much is a payoff for influencing all current and future PMs I shall leave to the reader to decide.
Some are like Blair, though I am not sure Brown would be in the top 1% by assets or May.
However Jacinda Ardern is paid almost double what Boris is paid and Merkel also 3 times what the UK PM gets
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
You're onto something here.
"The Night They Drove Coal Dixie Down (but we kept on singing!): The romanticisation of the miners' strike and the working class generally by the British middle class Left."
This is a book I've always wanted to write if I could do more than titles.
But now it's the Right doing it and it's in a far more pernicious fashion. Because what they at the same time caricature and celebrate is not the collectivist solidarity and sense of community of these salt-of-the-earths but the rather unevolved - or in PC speak "traditional" - social values and attitudes that some of them have.
I hate it - and I hate even more that in recent times it's working. June 23rd. Dec 12th. I won't add "etc" since I hope the tide is going out on all this crap, starting with Nov 3rd.
Excellent comment. As someone who believes a liberal world order is a good and far better than the alternatives, I think my side screwed up by not bothering to make to make the case for multiculturalism, globalisation etc and for not reaching out to everyone to include them in the benefits of these things. We ignored them and unsurprisingly they are receptive to the snake-oil of Farage, Johnson and the New Conservative Party that intend to con them.
Thanks. It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this. I'm quite optimistic that once this current wave of "right populism" has run its course - i.e. is revealed as being in the interests of a reactionary elite - we will get onto this path. Covid helps, I think.
This is a fairish summary, but what is wrong about people who have been made poorer by globalisation voting against it?
It's easy for people who have done well out of it to say it's all been worth it whilst coining it in.
I can't recall anyone suggesting the Tories are going to sweep London.
HYUFD suggested yesterday that, were the Conservatives to lose the Red Wall due to the Burnham effect, s future Sunak led Tory Party would compensate by winning London and the South East.
It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this.
Where would you place China on this scale?
China will have a higher gdp per capita than most of Europe by 2050 and almost as high as US gdp per capita.
China will soon be one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it has a highly educated population, once it abandoned Maoism it was always going to prosper
White privilage exists, but is not the only privilage, nor is it often the most important one.
Being told you have 'privilage' when you feel powerless anyway is counter productive, and can be dangerous.
If you're white and growing up in the rural mid west in the US, or a sink estate in a city in the UK with little money and prospects, do you really think it's helpful for teachers to be saying that you're privileged?
Ultimately, progressive policies should be about bringing people together. Not forcing them apart. To me identity politics forces people into binary positions, as if your worth, or position, or status can be defined as a series of 1's and 0's on what you 'are'.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
It's a surprisingly decent article from Monbiot. If he could tone down the outrage by 50%, and increase the factual analysis by 10% or so, it would actually be very good indeed.
An excellent article from Monbiot overall, I would say. What is does highlight is the huge influence of McKinsey's, as the model all other elite management consultancies follow, that many companies have actually adapted to in order to meet its expectations without running contracts with it, and that has run huge numbers of government functions.
This largely unknown organisation to most people has had huge political and cultural influence over the last 40 years - it's high time its supposedly 'apolitical' influence was more widely understood.
This is getting into lizard illuminati territory.
McKinsey is a high-end strategy consultancy but isn't the model all management consultancies follow - I know because I've worked for several - and isn't secretly pulling strings behind the scenes. That's not how they work.
The Big4 do operate as something of a soft cartel and that's because with their size, profile and reach (they audit almost all the FTSE100 and the vast majority of the FTSE250, plus have people working throughout all Government departments) work just comes through the door to them, and they are very good at leveraging. The Government likes hiring them as "what more could I have done?" in a crisis than hiring the Big4?
It's a cosy merry-go-round but it's not a conspiracy. Best thing Government could do is to lift some of the restrictions they have on hiring the best project and commercial talent and then diversify their procurement.
It's facts, rather than paranoia, I'm afraid. The modern reach, ethos and form of elite management consultancy wouldn't exist at all without McKinsey's, and its influence has been instrumental in corporate governance and public policy in the UK and the United States, and far beyond, since the turn of the 1980s. It is not a neutral technocratic instrument.
I'm afraid you asserting your opinion is a fact doesn't make it so. Some of its ex-employees have held and do hold senior corporate and political positions but that's because it employs extremely talented people who are happy to work hard for long hours - like William Hague, for example; it's not a conspiracy. It would be fair to say that operating at that level allowed them to network and build contacts with influential people at CEO level but it's secretly "controlling" anything - clients have to choose to take its advice.
Management consultancy (helping organisations improve performance) is a fairly recent profession and grew significantly in the 1980s because that was when corporations and businesses started moving away from a traditional hierarchical models just as the world got more complex in people, tax, strategy and technology, and more competitive in how it did things. It's that same evolution into more sophisticated business models that allowed GDP to rise so much at the same time. It wasn't a dark art of McKinsey that brought it all about.
Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't like to work for them. They still have an "up or out" policy, you are reviewed every six months and they work brutal hours and extensively travel. You're under constant stress. But, that said, those I know who've worked there have learnt a huge amount and found the experience very useful for their subsequent careers.
The 1980’s you say. And the period since then has been the epitome, has it not, of brilliant management in lots of private sector organisations. And of a GDP built on solid foundations ...... Or perhaps not.
Of course there have been problems, not least in the financial services industry, but world GDP (GWP) has increased from around 18tn in 1980 to around 81trn today - a four-fold increase in real terms. In England, from £15k per head in 1980 to almost £30k per head today - so we are twice as wealthy.
That doesn't mean we still have problems - including examples of poor practice, corruption, management failures and huge entitlement - but it does mean our 'new' services driven economy has delivered great improvements in the quality of life.
Two things can be true at the same time.
But these improvements are not down to the McKinsey way of management which you seemed to imply - but perhaps I misunderstood you.
If anything I think that the unnecessary complication - and the attempt to deal with that using management techniques sold at vast expense and which often seem to me to have been either the restatement of the bleeding obvious or like the Wizard of Oz devoid of content - have made things worse than they could have been. And have been one of the reasons for so many of the scandals and disasters we have seen and are still paying for.
One reason we do not have as much money as we would like is because we are still, in part, paying for the financial crisis over a decade ago, a crisis brought about by a lot of apparently very clever people trained by these apparently very clever consultants. I am afraid - and I know that this is my particular perspective - that I really don’t buy into this myth of this cleverness. There is a type of stupidity that only the very clever are capable of - and the financial world (though not just it) is full of such examples.
From my experience of "Consulting" (as customer and supplier) a common theme is that consultants are brought in by a particular executive as "allies" against others either inside or outside the organization. Could be defensive, a shoring up of a position when under attack, an attempt to maintain the status quo against those who want to stir things up, or the opposite, offensive, e.g. they want to get something done, or make some big changes, some "streamlining" maybe, reorg'd people and processes, whatever, and they need a "reputable" and "independent" report to slap down as clinching evidence for their case. If they are paying, the consultants will invariably tell them what they want to hear and deliver that report.
Very True. Most people who hire consultants already know what the answer is (or think they do), and want the consultants' report to bolster their own position. Thus the consultants' initial task is to find out what the client wants by way of recommendations, then pull out previous reports for other clients with similar recommendations and cut and paste in the new company's name. Now and again you'd find the old client's name in a report, where the cutting and pasting hadn't been so thorough.
You've clearly been there.
One from my chequered and sordid past that I think will appeal on here since it plays to Brownaphobia -
During a sojourn at one firm I became (not by choice) an "expert" at doing MC modelling using a software package called Crystal Ball. Main use for this was on PFI deals and so I did lots of them. Arrangement was, the govt dept bring us in and we have to "assess" whether the "balance of risk" in the building and maintenance over a 25 year period of an asset such as a new prison was under the terms of the PFI contract transferred from the state to the contractor. Get a "yes" to that and bingo, the deal "works" and it all goes off the public ledger. Off balance sheet financing in other words, aka cook the books.
So, it all comes down to what the model churns out, and because of the complexity of the inputs and calcs etc, this was enormously subjective and almost impossible to audit. So I would tinker around until it gave a "good" answer. Getting a "bad" answer - that the risk was not materially transferred - was unacceptable to everyone. The consulting fee (to the firm not to me) was large and was essentially for this. We were supposedly independent experts but in fact were neither. The name of the game was the name.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Boris will certainly not be doing well in "Leave regions" if the economy is in the toilet due to No Deal. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Honestly this is embarrassing. Nobody thinks the Tories will go forward in London in any scenario, please provide reasons why they will go forward with Sunak and an FTA?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
MPs are in the top 10% of earners, even in London.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
PMs are very comfortably in the top 1% of lifetime earners, when you consider their post office earnings. How much of that is down to their talent (or otherwise) and how much is a payoff for influencing all current and future PMs I shall leave to the reader to decide.
Some are like Blair, though I am not sure Brown would be in the top 1% by assets or May.
However Jacinda Ardern is paid almost double what Boris is paid and Merkel also 3 times what the UK PM gets
They’re both considerably better than him at the job, so seems fair.
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
You're onto something here.
"The Night They Drove Coal Dixie Down (but we kept on singing!): The romanticisation of the miners' strike and the working class generally by the British middle class Left."
This is a book I've always wanted to write if I could do more than titles.
But now it's the Right doing it and it's in a far more pernicious fashion. Because what they at the same time caricature and celebrate is not the collectivist solidarity and sense of community of these salt-of-the-earths but the rather unevolved - or in PC speak "traditional" - social values and attitudes that some of them have.
I hate it - and I hate even more that in recent times it's working. June 23rd. Dec 12th. I won't add "etc" since I hope the tide is going out on all this crap, starting with Nov 3rd.
Excellent comment. As someone who believes a liberal world order is a good and far better than the alternatives, I think my side screwed up by not bothering to make to make the case for multiculturalism, globalisation etc and for not reaching out to everyone to include them in the benefits of these things. We ignored them and unsurprisingly they are receptive to the snake-oil of Farage, Johnson and the New Conservative Party that intend to con them.
Thanks. It doesn't really matter what I think about globalization since more of it is inevitable but for the record I too welcome it. It makes "us" (the rich world) richer but at the same time poorer relative to "them" (the poor world) and that is a great thing, The problem is it widens inequalities between rich and poor in rich countries. But given rich countries are rich they ought to be able to come up with ways and means to combat this. I'm quite optimistic that once this current wave of "right populism" has run its course - i.e. is revealed as being in the interests of a reactionary elite - we will get onto this path. Covid helps, I think.
I'm afraid it won't, if nothing is learned from it.
I am still regularly astonished by arguments from posters like @FF43 that the problem is (after all the experiences and evidence of the last 10 years) that they didn't shout loud enough about the benefits of multiculturalism and globalisation.
The reasons voters turned to Farage, Brexit and Johnson is because they were promising to do something about very high levels of immigration and the governance than enabled it, rather than just being told how good it was for them by those then in power louder and more frequently - and doling out a bit more public funding.
You have to earn the right to be heard from voters first in order to convince them, and that means seriously engaging with their cultural concerns - like, a migration cap - as well as the economic ones. They go hand in hand.
Otherwise they will quickly conclude you're not listening, and turn to alternatives.
I can't recall anyone suggesting the Tories are going to sweep London.
HYUFD suggested yesterday that, were the Conservatives to lose the Red Wall due to the Burnham effect, s future Sunak led Tory Party would compensate by winning London and the South East.
I said if Sunak was leader in 2024 and we had a FTA with the EU then the map of a Sunak v Starmer election could look more like 1992 than 2019 ie the Tories lose many of the Red Wall seats that Kinnock won in 1992 but Sunak wins more of the seats Major won in 1992 and Cameron won in 2010 and 2015 in London and the South to partly compensate
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
There's a huge difference. Rashford's campaign is very public and open. Wealthy donors don't want you to know that they're having dinner with members of the Cabinet.
The only thing I can currently credit the government with is resisting the idiotic 2 week circuit breaker lockdown. Everything else they've done is a shambles.
The data says as much, there's a couple of areas that are worrying but most of the country is close to R=1 already.
He probably meant "it won't take much longer", or "the current measures are enough to get us there"... but clumsy to leave it at that, if the tweet is a fair representation of how he put it.
There's a related risk here, though. Too much focus on R=1 is dangerous. If R=0.95, the number of people infected will not be falling, so it'll still be burning through the population. If your main concern is with hospital capacity, R<1 is a win. But if your aim is to stop people getting sick, it should not be something that ought to get much fanfare.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Honestly this is embarrassing. Nobody thinks the Tories will go forward in London in any scenario, please provide reasons why they will go forward with Sunak and an FTA?
As Sunak has a higher approval rating with Remain voters and in London than Boris had even in 2019
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
So he’s operating exactly how this government likes to operate - without scrutiny or accountability and on the basis of who you know and PR...
He's hardly operating without scrutiny, as his entire campaign appears to be public. How is that different from any other single issue campaigner (other than he is pretty well off and famous) ?
On politics, the (much) bigger question is that the West is being both culturally *and* economically eclipsed by new rising powers at present, which will continue over the next 50-100 years.
The question is how we navigate those twin challenges at the same time whilst retaining our liberal democracies structures and civil societies without tearing ourselves apart.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Boris will certainly not be doing well in "Leave regions" if the economy is in the toilet due to No Deal. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
Even if we had a 1997 result in 2024 and Boris was leader on No Deal terms the Tories would still win almost certainly more seats percentage wise in Leave areas than in London which was what I said
His argument is rather flawed...how does an area get out of T3...well we look at the evidence after a month to see if it is working...i can tell you T3 doesn't work, you should instead have a 2 week circuit breaker (which is essentially the same as T3 and after which you won't know if it worked).
There's a big difference between T3 and circuit breaker. Pubs, restaurants, social mixing, non-essential businesses, non-essential travel all stop under circuit breaker. Circuit breaker is also national.
In terms of whether it worked - I think a comparison between Wales and England in 4-6 weeks will be a reasonably fair natural experiment.
There really isn't that big a difference between an area being in T3 or what they would be under a "circuit breaker".
T2 = no social mixing in your own home, you shouldn't make non essential travel out of your area. Work from Home. T3 = All of T2, plus no social mixing full stop, only restaurants open. No travel unless for work or school. No overnight stays not at your home.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Honestly this is embarrassing. Nobody thinks the Tories will go forward in London in any scenario, please provide reasons why they will go forward with Sunak and an FTA?
As Sunak has a higher approval rating with Remain voters and in London than Boris had even in 2019
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Actually, that is a bit of trolling on your part and distorting what I said. Anyone is absolutely right to campaign on whatever issues they want. What is the issue is whether anyone has the right to disproportionately use their influence to get the Government to make decisions on which all of us get impacted.
So Rashford can campaign but if his campaign starts being successful he has to stop?
The Rashford campaign reminds me of Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas a few years ago.
I said under Sunak not Boris and only with a FTA with the EU, if we go to No Deal under Boris then obviously the Tories will continue to do much worse in London than in Leave regions while that stays the case
Honestly this is embarrassing. Nobody thinks the Tories will go forward in London in any scenario, please provide reasons why they will go forward with Sunak and an FTA?
As Sunak has a higher approval rating with Remain voters and in London than Boris had even in 2019
Why would he do better than Starmer?
Starmer is closer to Ed Miliband ideologically than Corbyn and Sunak is closer to Cameron in some respects than Boris, Cameron did significantly better in London in 2015 than Boris did in London in 2019
Comments
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1318834749494919168?s=20
The chancellor is clearly unfit for office and has no grasp of the big picture. He would also be unfit for the office of PM, but still a net improvement over Boris. I honestly can't think of a single politician in Parliament who I'd want as PM, they're all useless.
The Government and MPs decide, not Rashford.
It doesnt matter whether I agree with it, I have as close to zero influence as makes no difference. For Rashford to be influential he had to persuade millions of people, and most importantly backbench Tory elected MPs. He can only do that where most of the country agree with him.
They should tell him to sod off and get J-Z or whatever he is called to find another social justice cause for him to blindly follow.
As I said, it is the equivalent of wealthy donors using their influence.
Do you know of or have you ever actually worked with any of these families?
What the answer to that is I don't know. More money is not always the answer.
This is a Vote Leave government, and one of the things that Vote Leave did very successfully was segmenting the messaging so different people came to the same conclusion for wildly different reasons. But such temporary coalitions are necessarily fissile and perhaps not possible in all policy areas. But most of all, it's a guerrilla tactic, which works much better when you aren't in power. This geographic, temporal, and branding fragmentation reflects the mindset of the leadership, and that mindset isn't working. We need much better focus.
But yes reducing tax on the working poor is a good idea.
"I'm almost starting to think this whole pandemic really is a conspiracy
Our continuing oppressive response to a virus that almost every human survives is making less and less sense
ANNABEL FENWICK ELLIOTT
SENIOR CONTENT EDITOR"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/almost-starting-think-whole-pandemic-really-conspiracy/
"Early voters in Texas have already exceeded the total number of people statewide who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 — and the election is still 14 days away."
This is absolutely crazy, maybe time to lump on the Democrats in Texas. I wonder if the number of votes cast in Texas will top the total number of registered voters in the state.
Those parties to celebrate the eradication of COVID seems a lifetime ago now.
The Tories going forward in London @HYUFD lol
Pubs, restaurants, social mixing, non-essential businesses, non-essential travel all stop under circuit breaker. Circuit breaker is also national.
In terms of whether it worked - I think a comparison between Wales and England in 4-6 weeks will be a reasonably fair natural experiment.
Those numbers mean Bailey can still win! lol
Honestly he had an open net when it comes to only giving 67% of Minimum Wage to people banned by law from working.
I'm beginning to regain my confidence that Starmer will be beatable next election.
For the job they do ie basically social work for constituents and scrutiny of legislation and the executive and voting on bills that is about right and of course the only qualification you need to be an MP is to win most votes in a parliamentary constituency.
The PM and Cabinet could be paid a bit more though as they are not in the top 1% of earners despite the responsibilities they have
Khan is hated in London! lol
Rishi will win back London! Lol
Nice
I can't recall anyone suggesting the Tories are going to sweep London.
For the developing world though globalisation has clearly been beneficial as much of the mass manufacturing which was not automated has now moved to them where the labour costs are cheaper, same with call centre jobs many are getting in India now
Jesus why on Earth would you say that?
tldr: no, Johnson lied again
The government can then decide whether to cut taxes to 10%. If they think that there's more public support than opposition for doing that, or that it's right in principle despite public opposition, then I'll oppose that too - but since the debate has happened in public, and no-one used their wealth to improperly buy access to that debate (by paying for a seat at dinner next to a Cabinet minister), then what's the harm? Public debate influencing politicians, what a shocking outrage.
If the public feel that a government is too easily persuaded by a couple of tweets to change policy then they can subsequently vote for a different one.
I think it's a good thing for more people to be involved in public debate of politics.
However Jacinda Ardern is paid almost double what Boris is paid and Merkel also 3 times what the UK PM gets
It's easy for people who have done well out of it to say it's all been worth it whilst coining it in.
China will soon be one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it has a highly educated population, once it abandoned Maoism it was always going to prosper
HYUFD makes the case for Unionists removing the Nationalists from office in Scotland, for Trump winning because Trafalgar and for invading Madrid.
London is a snow news day for him.
Being told you have 'privilage' when you feel powerless anyway is counter productive, and can be dangerous.
If you're white and growing up in the rural mid west in the US, or a sink estate in a city in the UK with little money and prospects, do you really think it's helpful for teachers to be saying that you're privileged?
Ultimately, progressive policies should be about bringing people together. Not forcing them apart. To me identity politics forces people into binary positions, as if your worth, or position, or status can be defined as a series of 1's and 0's on what you 'are'.
One from my chequered and sordid past that I think will appeal on here since it plays to Brownaphobia -
During a sojourn at one firm I became (not by choice) an "expert" at doing MC modelling using a software package called Crystal Ball. Main use for this was on PFI deals and so I did lots of them. Arrangement was, the govt dept bring us in and we have to "assess" whether the "balance of risk" in the building and maintenance over a 25 year period of an asset such as a new prison was under the terms of the PFI contract transferred from the state to the contractor. Get a "yes" to that and bingo, the deal "works" and it all goes off the public ledger. Off balance sheet financing in other words, aka cook the books.
So, it all comes down to what the model churns out, and because of the complexity of the inputs and calcs etc, this was enormously subjective and almost impossible to audit. So I would tinker around until it gave a "good" answer. Getting a "bad" answer - that the risk was not materially transferred - was unacceptable to everyone. The consulting fee (to the firm not to me) was large and was essentially for this. We were supposedly independent experts but in fact were neither. The name of the game was the name.
I am still regularly astonished by arguments from posters like @FF43 that the problem is (after all the experiences and evidence of the last 10 years) that they didn't shout loud enough about the benefits of multiculturalism and globalisation.
The reasons voters turned to Farage, Brexit and Johnson is because they were promising to do something about very high levels of immigration and the governance than enabled it, rather than just being told how good it was for them by those then in power louder and more frequently - and doling out a bit more public funding.
You have to earn the right to be heard from voters first in order to convince them, and that means seriously engaging with their cultural concerns - like, a migration cap - as well as the economic ones. They go hand in hand.
Otherwise they will quickly conclude you're not listening, and turn to alternatives.
Johnson is a liar, it was him who spaffed money up the wall during his Mayoralty, now he talks about economic competence.
Where's the Garden Bridge?
There's a related risk here, though. Too much focus on R=1 is dangerous. If R=0.95, the number of people infected will not be falling, so it'll still be burning through the population. If your main concern is with hospital capacity, R<1 is a win. But if your aim is to stop people getting sick, it should not be something that ought to get much fanfare.
How is that different from any other single issue campaigner (other than he is pretty well off and famous) ?
The question is how we navigate those twin challenges at the same time whilst retaining our liberal democracies structures and civil societies without tearing ourselves apart.
NEW THREAD
T2 = no social mixing in your own home, you shouldn't make non essential travel out of your area. Work from Home.
T3 = All of T2, plus no social mixing full stop, only restaurants open. No travel unless for work or school. No overnight stays not at your home.