I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
I hope you have adequate public liability insurance if you intend driving random golf balls in an area not designated for golf
Some years ago my playing partner was hit on the left forehead by a drive from another hole that felled him like a log. I rushed over to him and accompanied him to hospital in the ambulance
Sadly he was never the same after this incident and died a couple of years later
Hitting golf balls is not something to be done irresponsibly
Thanks for the advice, but I had appreciated that. I'm planning to practices my wedges and at most short irons if there's enough space, certainly not a driver. And in practice I won't be hitting balls anywhere near other people, although I hope they will take the hint and keep well away.
Golf courses have to close, but hitting golf balls isn't yet banned. If Johnson wants to emulate King James II of Scotland then he may yet do so, but the latter was only doing so to promote archery.
Sorry to hear about your playing partner.
Tennis was dangerous for one scottish king. cost him his life iirc, albeit indirectly. cant remember exactly which one though.
Casino has like two states of posting, abusive or insightful. It's genuinely bizarre to see the pendulum swing between the two so quickly.
Yes, I'm not perfect. I have to hold my hands up and admit that. Sometimes I boil over and vent as a release; I'm not proud of it.
A lot of people on here know me personally though. They will tell you (I hope) that I'm not a bad bloke in reality.
I actually really like the vast majority of posters on here, including those I don't politically agree with. I far prefer the constructive debates and insightful exchanges of views rather than the partisan stuff.
I say with the greatest of respect - and I thank you for acknowledging your flaws as many people do not and for that you have my admiration - that I think you do need to understand that everyone is partisan.
Everyone knows that I am a leftie - perhaps not as left wing as some people think but I am not denying I'm left wing - but therefore when I post a criticism of Johnson of course it's going to be partisan. Just as when you praise the Tory Party it's going to be partisan.
Just because it's partisan, it does not make it any less interesting or insightful, in my view.
What I don't find interesting or insightful is abusiveness or bullying, of which there is some by people on both sides. That is when I prefer to log off and I know others do as well.
I think what gets my back up is when you mindlessly start attacking lefties as "woke", because it's like the same post just regurgitated over and over again. You hate woke stuff - I am still not clear what that actually means and it seems to differ depending on the day but there you go - and that's fine but it's like me saying I hate the Tories. Everyone knows that.
I'm not saying you shouldn't stop posting it, post what you want - although I don't appreciate the abusive posting - I am just saying you get that response because it's not interesting. Your interesting posts are basically anything that isn't that!
Keep posting Casino, I enjoy your posts, they're often insightful.
The Lib Dems seem to be more invisible than before, somehow.
As others have pointed out before, the Labour rise has been mostly - but not entirely - due to Lib Dem voters folding into Labour.
This raises an interesting point, that is it possible that Labour doesn't really need to convert many more Tory voters to deny the Tories a majority in the worst case?
On current polling Labour does not need any more Tory voters to deny the Tories another majority, however they still need significantly more Tory voters to get a Labour majority, especially if they do not regain large numbers of seats from the SNP in Scotland
I think you've got this the wrong way round.
It starts with adminstrative and governmental competence. Without that Starmer will win by default (despite his faults) because people won't exercise other choices until they know they've got a candidate who can at least do the job.
In fact, that was a big part of why Boris won last year when put next to Corbyn - even though some people were crying whilst doing it.
Next time the tables will be turned which is why the Tories need someone who's demonstrably effective so they can turn the "safe pair of hands" back on Starmer again, which could include common-sense on cultural issues rather than pursuing left-wing identity politics, where Starmer will continue to struggle.
Which means Sunak, Hunt would lose so many voters to Farage he is the only potential Tory leader who could enable a Labour majority next time
I don't think that's true. Hunt could do a Macron.
It's policy and effectiveness that will determine whether he'll lose voters to Farage. May only started to shed to him because she'd failed to get Brexit done, and we had to suffer the farce of another round of EU Parliament elections as a result.
Hunt would need charisma to do a Macron.
He has no more or less than Starmer does.
Not sure that’s true, but either way to do a ‘Macron’ would require considerable charisma that Hunt clearly does not possess.
It doesn't require any charisma. It just requires courage and leadership.
You are wrong. Macron created a movement around himself. A new party. That takes courage, leadership and a ton of charisma. Hunt couldn’t do that.
Casino has like two states of posting, abusive or insightful. It's genuinely bizarre to see the pendulum swing between the two so quickly.
Yes, I'm not perfect. I have to hold my hands up and admit that. Sometimes I boil over and vent as a release; I'm not proud of it.
A lot of people on here know me personally though. They will tell you (I hope) that I'm not a bad bloke in reality.
I actually really like the vast majority of posters on here, including those I don't politically agree with. I far prefer the constructive debates and insightful exchanges of views rather than the partisan stuff.
I would not worry to much if I were you. The conservative party is always pragmatic about winning power, and will change if necessary to do that again as it always has before.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
This is a good header. I voted for Hunt as leader. as I thought there were no skeletons in his cupboard, and he'd be happy to do Brexit, despite having voted Remain.
TBH I'm not particularly concerned about a US-UK trade deal. We are doing very well as things stand trading with the US on WTO terms.
Absolutely agree and the US and UK joining TPPA would be a good outcome for everyone
There is no chance of a TPPA deal being agreed for years, especially as it involves multiple countries, what is clear is we need to do a trade deal with the EU first and then Biden will agree do do a trade deal with us whether a FTA or via TPPA, if not and the internal markets bill stands undiluted by an EU trade deal we will be in trouble with neither an EU or US trade deal
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
A remarkable number of very novel things these days are "Marxist". Pretty astonishing for a man who died 137 years ago.
Absolutely agree with this article. If Hunt became leader I would probably rejoin the party and I think a lot of others would too. He would be a unity candidate
Hunt would bring back a few Remainers at most like yourself from Starmer Labour or the LDs, however he would risk seeing large numbers of hardline Brexiteers and anti lockdown supporters moving to Farage and his new Reform UK Party (with Farage likely forming a pact with Lawrence Fox on the UK alt right).
I would support the Tories whether under Boris, Sunak or Hunt but for me Sunak is the only viable alternative to Boris
Lawrence Fox? Surely even Farage doesn't take him seriously.
3 million people play golf at least 10 times a year in the UK (plus 16 million who play some form of golf like adventure or crazy golf) - Thats a lot of people to piss off in order to stop the few class warrior complaints about allowing "posh" sports
TBH I'm not particularly concerned about a US-UK trade deal. We are doing very well as things stand trading with the US on WTO terms.
We have a huge trade surplus with the USA as it is. Any trade deal would benefit the US far more than it would benefit us.
I think making it easier for professionals to work in the UK and USA, respectively, would be of benefit as would making it easier for us to export and deliver financial services.
But, I have no desire to adopt their agricultural standards unless they level up or are equivalent.
This is a good header. I voted for Hunt as leader. as I thought there were no skeletons in his cupboard, and he'd be happy to do Brexit, despite having voted Remain.
I agree, but as we stand I can`t see how anyone can beat Sunak in the membership vote no matter which other candidate MPs nominate. The only chance that Sunak doesn`t do it is if he is not in the final two, and I just wonder about the breadth of MP support for him.
Absolutely agree with this article. If Hunt became leader I would probably rejoin the party and I think a lot of others would too. He would be a unity candidate
Hunt would bring back a few Remainers at most like yourself from Starmer Labour or the LDs, however he would risk seeing large numbers of hardline Brexiteers and anti lockdown supporters moving to Farage and his new Reform UK Party (with Farage likely forming a pact with Lawrence Fox on the UK alt right).
I would support the Tories whether under Boris, Sunak or Hunt but for me Sunak is the only viable alternative to Boris
Lawrence Fox? Surely even Farage doesn't take him seriously.
Farage won't tolerate anyone else stealing his limelight.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
TBH I'm not particularly concerned about a US-UK trade deal. We are doing very well as things stand trading with the US on WTO terms.
Absolutely agree and the US and UK joining TPPA would be a good outcome for everyone
There is no chance of a TPPA deal being agreed for years, especially as it involves multiple countries, what is clear is we need to do a trade deal with the EU first and then Biden will agree do do a trade deal with us whether a FTA or via TPPA, if not and the internal markets bill stands undiluted by an EU trade deal we will be in trouble with neither an EU or US trade deal
So you would not support a No Deal Brexit outcome then?
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either. Yet he still calls people that quite often.
He looks awful, poor man, I really genuinely fear for his health. To see somebody in this state in such a difficult job is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I just watched it but with the sound off to check your comment.
Tbh, I don't think he looks any worse than usual (though I agree, a good haircut would help). Why does he always have to have a smirk on his face though?
He has his hair that way to hide he is going bald, he is too vain to get a real haircut
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
Everyone’s just desperate to (legally) leave the house, and all the Govt restrictions have done is massively reduce the areas where everyone can go. Whether inside (non essential shops - never busy but now shut - pushing larger numbers into the shops now open) or outside (shutting perfectly safe outdoor leisure sites - golf, zoos, theme parks) and pushing larger numbers into the parks.
So simultaneously killing business and economic activity whilst increasing likelihood of killing people!
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
Indeed.
Whoever decided on the rules seems to have no understanding about risk or of the concept of activity displacement.
The golf situation seems crazy, not that I really play golf often. How can two mates walking round a course be ok, but if they play golf it's dangerous? (apart from no one getting hit by a ball/angrily thrown club)
In March they had public buyin to the “don’t leave the house except for essential purposes”. So closing things like golf courses made some sense (within the overall concept of a ‘lockdown’). This time round they are trying the same line - but the public aren’t having any of it. The public are not interested in the spirit of the rules, only the letter.
And when the Govt has included leaving for the purposes of shopping for essential supplies, exercise or meeting up (with one person) FOR “RECREATION” then really “essential reasons” is out the window. So the Govt should be giving, as a minimum, access to as many outdoor recreational activities as possible.
Not at all. Exercise is a necessity, as is social contact. So you can meet up with one other person outdoors for a walk, run, cycle ride etc but not engage in any organised sport. This looks to me about allowing what is essential. It's only for less than a month anyway and we'll be 14% of the way through it by the end of today.
I will be fine with meeting up with one other person outdoors for a walk providing that while doing so I can hit a golf ball in social non-competitive golf. Ditto with social tennis between two people. What is different between that and meeting up with another person for a jog or a cycle ride for goodness sake, other than that I'll not be talking constantly to the person I'm walking around the course with as we won't be in close proximity for the most part.
TBH I'm not particularly concerned about a US-UK trade deal. We are doing very well as things stand trading with the US on WTO terms.
Absolutely agree and the US and UK joining TPPA would be a good outcome for everyone
There is no chance of a TPPA deal being agreed for years, especially as it involves multiple countries, what is clear is we need to do a trade deal with the EU first and then Biden will agree do do a trade deal with us whether a FTA or via TPPA, if not and the internal markets bill stands undiluted by an EU trade deal we will be in trouble with neither an EU or US trade deal
So you would not support a No Deal Brexit outcome then?
I have always been clear I prefer a trade deal to No Deal while respecting the Brexit vote
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
Indeed.
Whoever decided on the rules seems to have no understanding about risk or of the concept of activity displacement.
There should not have been this lockdown in the first place but closing golf courses FFS - I mean how on earth does the thought process go that thats high risk?
They have decided to close down all outdoor sport. Many people regard golf as posh, therefore allowing golf but banning football would look bad, despite the difference in numbers and closeness of competitors. My running club has had to suspend its Socially Distanced 6-per-group evening runs. My butcher tells me he may not be able to get any pheasant as shooting has been banned - surely hunting and killing food is a necessity?
Golf isn't a posh sport but there are class (and wealth) divides within it - its a lot easier (and cheaper) to play at a council owned course rather than an 'exclusive' members only one.
Not just council owned course , in fact the majority of golf clubs are open to pay and play for as little as £10 a round .Nobody stands over you to see if you are good enough or wearing the right togs at most courses - films like Caddyshack have a lot to answer for!
I did say it was perception. I am not sure that playing golf would be much more expensive than running when (in normal times) I spend significant amounts of money on kit, race entries and associated travel and sometimes accommodation costs.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
Everyone’s just desperate to (legally) leave the house, and all the Govt restrictions have done is massively reduce the areas where everyone can go. Whether inside (non essential shops - never busy but now shut - pushing larger numbers into the shops now open) or outside (shutting perfectly safe outdoor leisure sites - golf, zoos, theme parks) and pushing larger numbers into the parks.
So simultaneously killing business and economic activity whilst increasing likelihood of killing people!
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
Indeed.
Whoever decided on the rules seems to have no understanding about risk or of the concept of activity displacement.
The golf situation seems crazy, not that I really play golf often. How can two mates walking round a course be ok, but if they play golf it's dangerous? (apart from no one getting hit by a ball/angrily thrown club)
In March they had public buyin to the “don’t leave the house except for essential purposes”. So closing things like golf courses made some sense (within the overall concept of a ‘lockdown’). This time round they are trying the same line - but the public aren’t having any of it. The public are not interested in the spirit of the rules, only the letter.
And when the Govt has included leaving for the purposes of shopping for essential supplies, exercise or meeting up (with one person) FOR “RECREATION” then really “essential reasons” is out the window. So the Govt should be giving, as a minimum, access to as many outdoor recreational activities as possible.
Not at all. Exercise is a necessity, as is social contact. So you can meet up with one other person outdoors for a walk, run, cycle ride etc but not engage in any organised sport. This looks to me about allowing what is essential. It's only for less than a month anyway and we'll be 14% of the way through it by the end of today.
I believe the legislation says "recreation" not "social contact". could be wrong. However the fact that the intention is to allow the latter only, doesn't change people's behaviour.
And it's not just sport/golf. They've shut zoos. Botanical Gardens. etc etc. Basically the rule seems to be - if it's a "business" (even a charitable business) it must shut. If it's a public open space it remains open. Which just increases the pressure on the public open spaces, increasing the health risk.
If you're going to do a lockdown, go full China. Prevent people going out. Everything else is just relative levels of restrictions. The Government seem to have hit upon a level of restrictions which in many cases is more 'dangerous' that the "lighter" restrictions that have been replaced. We can still go out. Just not as safely.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
Living in relationships with people from various cultures, it is quite clear to me that a large amount quantity of this stuff is made up without referencing the people involved.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order. **Sometime literally.
I think this is a mistake and the lockdown should be extended.
Yes - frustrating that there's not more alignment between the UK nations. All leaders equally at fault.
I have a feeling that in a few weeks the English lockdown is going to be proven to be a big mistake. I think it may actually lead to a worsening of the situation when there were signs that the Tiers were having an effect (of course in practice a worsening will now be taken of "evidence" of the necessity of the lockdown). Under the "lockdown" (which isn't actually remotely close to a real lockdown) the incentives for the public to comply have been destroyed. When we had the Tier system there was some evidence of communities in general pulling together to avoid being pushed into higher Tiers. What was missing was a route-map to lower Tiers but that could have come. Now there are no incentives. Nobody believes any of these messages about "saving Christmas".
The evidence in London yesterday was that people were completely ignoring the new rules. The parks and open spaces were packed. Far, far busier than in recent weeks. Rules on households clearly being ignored. The pubs were doing a roaring takeaway trade. Someone told me there was a 20 minute queue outside Pret to get a free coffee offer!!! I believe all of this is a direct response to the new Government lockdown. And this is what people are doing in public. It doesn't include what people are doing in private. The Government will blame the public (who claim in polls to support it...) But the behavioural scientists must have been dropped from SAGE or bloody useless because it was all absolutely predictable.
Not all parks are packed. The two square kilometers of parkland at my golf club was no doubt absolutely deserted yesterday save for 5 greens staff maintaining the course in the lovely Autumn weather. So because I couldn't exercise there in splendid isolation instead I added to the numbers taking their exercise down the local disused railway track and nature reserve which was absolutely heaving. Must have walked past 200 others in the space of an hour.
On Monday I'm going to say sod it and wander down to the local playing fields to hit some practice balls around. My mate was doing so yesterday. If anyone objects to balls flying past them I'll suggest that they should social distance at 100+ yards like we do away from other twoballs on the course. If a couple of people are hitting tennis balls across the tarmaced car park next to the closed tennis courts I'll fully understand.
My support for the lockdown is waning simply because of the cack handed sense of priorities. Banning socially distanced outside sport while relaxing the rules to encouraging people to congregate outside pubs serving takeaway beer is an utterly absurd situation. I imagine that Homebase is today going to be heaving from people who have absolutely nothing to do but to go shopping indoors for leisure, and unlike me don't care about the risk to others as well as themselves.
I hope you have adequate public liability insurance if you intend driving random golf balls in an area not designated for golf
Some years ago my playing partner was hit on the left forehead by a drive from another hole that felled him like a log. I rushed over to him and accompanied him to hospital in the ambulance
Sadly he was never the same after this incident and died a couple of years later
Hitting golf balls is not something to be done irresponsibly
Thanks for the advice, but I had appreciated that. I'm planning to practices my wedges and at most short irons if there's enough space, certainly not a driver. And in practice I won't be hitting balls anywhere near other people, although I hope they will take the hint and keep well away.
Golf courses have to close, but hitting golf balls isn't yet banned. If Johnson wants to emulate King James II of Scotland then he may yet do so, but the latter was only doing so to promote archery.
Sorry to hear about your playing partner.
Tennis was dangerous for one scottish king. cost him his life iirc, albeit indirectly. cant remember exactly which one though.
He looks awful, poor man, I really genuinely fear for his health. To see somebody in this state in such a difficult job is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I just watched it but with the sound off to check your comment.
Tbh, I don't think he looks any worse than usual (though I agree, a good haircut would help). Why does he always have to have a smirk on his face though?
He has his hair that way to hide he is going bald, he is too vain to get a real haircut
Hmm, interesting this is a close result but Brexit was decisive isn't it Darren?
Why do people listen to this guy, he's evidently a partisan moron who gives Tories a bad name
They listen to him because the various cases against him propelled him to significance. Given the cases have largely (or completely, I don't remember) failed, it was a tremendous waste of time which has made a career for the guy instead.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
A remarkable number of very novel things these days are "Marxist". Pretty astonishing for a man who died 137 years ago.
Christian, Confucian, Zoroastrian.
Well, quite. And these are terms that can mean a whole lot of different things to different people, some of which have nothing to do with the original canon. Often to the extent that it renders the intended message of the speaker less clear than if they had left the term out completely. I confess I do not understand what is meant by "cultural marxism". I do know that it is used by some as an anti-semitic dog whistle, but I don't think that's what's intended here.
So the Internal Markets Bill is gone and with that, Johnson either does proper No Deal or he capitulates and its back to May's deal as he originally negotiated.
Johnson has gambled and he's recently discovered far from a flush, he's got Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
Watching fox news for a few days, their guests are actually mostly in favour of legalising cannabis. Its inevitable in the US and where they lead on this Europe will follow. Prohibition has failed. Bigly.
There are plenty of people here who remained opposed, like Dr Foxy and Cyclefree I believe, but it doesn't seem anything would be able to convince the hard core doubters, whilst the number who support or don't care rises. People seem to smoke the stuff pretty openly in the streets, so it feels like the police think they have bigger problems wto worry about than make people worried about being arrested for it.
But anyone who says you should only count legal votes in an election is correct. That doesn't mean they are siding with Trump. It is his definition of legal that is utterly wrong.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
Watching fox news for a few days, their guests are actually mostly in favour of legalising cannabis. Its inevitable in the US and where they lead on this Europe will follow. Prohibition has failed. Bigly.
There are plenty of people here who remained opposed, like Dr Foxy and Cyclefree I believe, but it doesn't seem anything would be able to convince the hard core doubters, whilst the number who support or don't care rises. People seem to smoke the stuff pretty openly in the streets, so it feels like the police think they have bigger problems wto worry about than make people worried about being arrested for it.
There are several states (including many Red states) which votes to decriminalise and/or legalise cannabis last Tuesday.
The Lib Dems seem to be more invisible than before, somehow.
As others have pointed out before, the Labour rise has been mostly - but not entirely - due to Lib Dem voters folding into Labour.
This raises an interesting point, that is it possible that Labour doesn't really need to convert many more Tory voters to deny the Tories a majority in the worst case?
On current polling Labour does not need any more Tory voters to deny the Tories another majority, however they still need significantly more Tory voters to get a Labour majority, especially if they do not regain large numbers of seats from the SNP in Scotland
I think you've got this the wrong way round.
It starts with adminstrative and governmental competence. Without that Starmer will win by default (despite his faults) because people won't exercise other choices until they know they've got a candidate who can at least do the job.
In fact, that was a big part of why Boris won last year when put next to Corbyn - even though some people were crying whilst doing it.
Next time the tables will be turned which is why the Tories need someone who's demonstrably effective so they can turn the "safe pair of hands" back on Starmer again, which could include common-sense on cultural issues rather than pursuing left-wing identity politics, where Starmer will continue to struggle.
Which means Sunak, Hunt would lose so many voters to Farage he is the only potential Tory leader who could enable a Labour majority next time
I don't think that's true. Hunt could do a Macron.
It's policy and effectiveness that will determine whether he'll lose voters to Farage. May only started to shed to him because she'd failed to get Brexit done, and we had to suffer the farce of another round of EU Parliament elections as a result.
Hunt would need charisma to do a Macron.
He has no more or less than Starmer does.
Not sure that’s true, but either way to do a ‘Macron’ would require considerable charisma that Hunt clearly does not possess.
It doesn't require any charisma. It just requires courage and leadership.
I'd agree on that. Macron does not seem particularly charismatic (albeit he was aided in his final opponent last time) but to get where he is, including with a parliamentary majority, is very impressive. Charisma is relative anyway, and a bonus I think.
The Lib Dems seem to be more invisible than before, somehow.
As others have pointed out before, the Labour rise has been mostly - but not entirely - due to Lib Dem voters folding into Labour.
This raises an interesting point, that is it possible that Labour doesn't really need to convert many more Tory voters to deny the Tories a majority in the worst case?
On current polling Labour does not need any more Tory voters to deny the Tories another majority, however they still need significantly more Tory voters to get a Labour majority, especially if they do not regain large numbers of seats from the SNP in Scotland
I think you've got this the wrong way round.
It starts with adminstrative and governmental competence. Without that Starmer will win by default (despite his faults) because people won't exercise other choices until they know they've got a candidate who can at least do the job.
In fact, that was a big part of why Boris won last year when put next to Corbyn - even though some people were crying whilst doing it.
Next time the tables will be turned which is why the Tories need someone who's demonstrably effective so they can turn the "safe pair of hands" back on Starmer again, which could include common-sense on cultural issues rather than pursuing left-wing identity politics, where Starmer will continue to struggle.
Which means Sunak, Hunt would lose so many voters to Farage he is the only potential Tory leader who could enable a Labour majority next time
I don't think that's true. Hunt could do a Macron.
It's policy and effectiveness that will determine whether he'll lose voters to Farage. May only started to shed to him because she'd failed to get Brexit done, and we had to suffer the farce of another round of EU Parliament elections as a result.
Hunt would need charisma to do a Macron.
He has no more or less than Starmer does.
Not sure that’s true, but either way to do a ‘Macron’ would require considerable charisma that Hunt clearly does not possess.
It doesn't require any charisma. It just requires courage and leadership.
You are wrong. Macron created a movement around himself. A new party. That takes courage, leadership and a ton of charisma. Hunt couldn’t do that.
Casino has like two states of posting, abusive or insightful. It's genuinely bizarre to see the pendulum swing between the two so quickly.
Yes, I'm not perfect. I have to hold my hands up and admit that. Sometimes I boil over and vent as a release; I'm not proud of it.
A lot of people on here know me personally though. They will tell you (I hope) that I'm not a bad bloke in reality.
I actually really like the vast majority of posters on here, including those I don't politically agree with. I far prefer the constructive debates and insightful exchanges of views rather than the partisan stuff.
CR is charming, self-deprecating and excellent company (as I can attest from at least two splendid Thai curries with him).
Hmm, interesting this is a close result but Brexit was decisive isn't it Darren?
Why do people listen to this guy, he's evidently a partisan moron who gives Tories a bad name
They listen to him because the various cases against him propelled him to significance. Given the cases have largely (or completely, I don't remember) failed, it was a tremendous waste of time which has made a career for the guy instead.
3 million people play golf at least 10 times a year in the UK (plus 16 million who play some form of golf like adventure or crazy golf) - Thats a lot of people to piss off in order to stop the few class warrior complaints about allowing "posh" sports
I don't think that is the reason.
Mr Johnson woke? Forget it.
I think it's just a fairness issue about sport - whether posh or not - and reducing the excuses for contact (and standing downwind of someone for non-trivial periods of time may be the medical issue here).
What a bellend. He can’t even scribble on a hat correctly.
I don't know why he's done that. It's a mistake.
One, he might believe it. Two, he's enjoyed the attention for outspoken remarks against various matters, and has miscalculated what the people who enjoyed that feel about Trump. Trump does have British fans, but even among the anti-wokers and so on he's not massively popular.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
But anyone who says you should only count legal votes in an election is correct. That doesn't mean they are siding with Trump. It is his definition of legal that is utterly wrong.
Yes, but that's not how people would take it at this present moment. Even appearance of agreement with Trump, even if not actually agreeing with him, would cause an uproar I'd bet.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
A remarkable number of very novel things these days are "Marxist". Pretty astonishing for a man who died 137 years ago.
People argue about proper Christian behaviour too and he died nearly 2000 years ago.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
Living in relationships with people from various cultures, it is quite clear to me that a large amount quantity of this stuff is made up without referencing the people involved.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order. **Sometime literally.
Armed robbers went from being the elite of the underworld to being dinosaurs, over the course of a generation.
Ladbrokes have % bands on what Khan gets in the 1st round of the 2021 Mayoral Election. 4/1 on Over 50%, and I'd probably make it 2/1. He's polling in the very high 40s on average, it's definitely a distinct possibility.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
I'm not saying you are wrong, but why does no-one ever say this about Republicans trash-talking minorities/urban areas? Trump, and plenty of other Republicans, will openly say that Chicago is a hell-hole because Democrats run it and no-one ever seems to worry that they are driving those voters into the arms of the hard left.
The Labour Party is constantly called "woke" and yet by Casino's own definition, the majority of members and MPs would not fit that, yet the MSM labels Labour as such constantly. Therefore I conclude that Casino's definition is not shared by people, or those that use it don't understand its meaning.
In actual usage it is used often to say something you know to be offensive but then because PC is "old school" you use woke instead.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
Senior Republicans have been 'talking' and dog whistling to them for the last 4 years, to the point of going native. The GOP needs a DeTrumpification programme before pious talk of reaching out has any currency.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
I'm not saying you are wrong, but why does no-one ever say this about Republicans trash-talking minorities/urban areas? Trump, and plenty of other Republicans, will openly say that Chicago is a hell-hole because Democrats run it and no-one ever seems to worry that they are driving those voters into the arms of the hard left.
He looks awful, poor man, I really genuinely fear for his health. To see somebody in this state in such a difficult job is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I just watched it but with the sound off to check your comment.
Tbh, I don't think he looks any worse than usual (though I agree, a good haircut would help). Why does he always have to have a smirk on his face though?
He has his hair that way to hide he is going bald, he is too vain to get a real haircut
His hair has been like that for nigh on 15 years, if not more. It might be additionally useful to cover up going bald, but it clearly didn't start out for that reason.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
I'm not saying you are wrong, but why does no-one ever say this about Republicans trash-talking minorities/urban areas? Trump, and plenty of other Republicans, will openly say that Chicago is a hell-hole because Democrats run it and no-one ever seems to worry that they are driving those voters into the arms of the hard left.
To be fair, the record of Democratic machine politicians in places like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New York is distinctly underwhelming.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
Living in relationships with people from various cultures, it is quite clear to me that a large amount quantity of this stuff is made up without referencing the people involved.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order. **Sometime literally.
Armed robbers went from being the elite of the underworld to being dinosaurs, over the course of a generation.
It was faster than that - and they ended up dead or in prison, mostly.
Ironically, the former state was largely the fault of lawyers working for paramilitaries in Northern Ireland....
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
I'm not saying you are wrong, but why does no-one ever say this about Republicans trash-talking minorities/urban areas? Trump, and plenty of other Republicans, will openly say that Chicago is a hell-hole because Democrats run it and no-one ever seems to worry that they are driving those voters into the arms of the hard left.
To be fair, the record of Democratic machine politicians in places like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New York is distinctly underwhelming.
That doesn't excuse the language they use.
Trump said Chicago was infested, we all know what he meant.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
I move in mostly leftwing circles (except at work) and have never met anyone who referred to themselves as a Marxist. To be honest I find the discussions on wokeness etc the most boring thing about this site. It just comes across as a bunch of rural Spectator readers assembling a series of straw men (or straw people as the PC brigade would no doubt make us say these days - see how easy it is!) that they then take an absurd delight in tearing down as if they are delivering some great truth or attacking some great shibboleth. None of it moves the debate forward one millimetre on the many very real issues affecting minority groups, not that it is designed to of course.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
I move in mostly leftwing circles (except at work) and have never met anyone who referred to themselves as a Marxist. To be honest I find the discussions on wokeness etc the most boring thing about this site. It just comes across as a bunch of rural Spectator readers assembling a series of straw men (or straw people as the PC brigade would no doubt make us say these days - see how easy it is!) that they then take an absurd delight in tearing down as if they are delivering some great truth or attacking some great shibboleth. None of it moves the debate forward one millimetre on the many very real issues affecting minority groups, not that it is designed to of course.
I stand by my view that today's "woke" is just yesterday's "PC brigade".
These same people would have been calling those fighting for gay rights woke and PC just a few decades ago.
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
I'm not saying you are wrong, but why does no-one ever say this about Republicans trash-talking minorities/urban areas? Trump, and plenty of other Republicans, will openly say that Chicago is a hell-hole because Democrats run it and no-one ever seems to worry that they are driving those voters into the arms of the hard left.
Yes. It seems curious the majority needs to make strenuous efforts to understand the minority (Which they ought to btw). Yet the minority ought to carry on blithely othering the majority of voters.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
I move in mostly leftwing circles (except at work) and have never met anyone who referred to themselves as a Marxist. To be honest I find the discussions on wokeness etc the most boring thing about this site. It just comes across as a bunch of rural Spectator readers assembling a series of straw men (or straw people as the PC brigade would no doubt make us say these days - see how easy it is!) that they then take an absurd delight in tearing down as if they are delivering some great truth or attacking some great shibboleth. None of it moves the debate forward one millimetre on the many very real issues affecting minority groups, not that it is designed to of course.
I stand by my view that today's "woke" is just yesterday's "PC brigade".
These same people would have been calling those fighting for gay rights woke and PC just a few decades ago.
Yeah. It's not just wrong though, it's also boring, which in some ways is worse.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
I move in mostly leftwing circles (except at work) and have never met anyone who referred to themselves as a Marxist. To be honest I find the discussions on wokeness etc the most boring thing about this site. It just comes across as a bunch of rural Spectator readers assembling a series of straw men (or straw people as the PC brigade would no doubt make us say these days - see how easy it is!) that they then take an absurd delight in tearing down as if they are delivering some great truth or attacking some great shibboleth. None of it moves the debate forward one millimetre on the many very real issues affecting minority groups, not that it is designed to of course.
I stand by my view that today's "woke" is just yesterday's "PC brigade".
These same people would have been calling those fighting for gay rights woke and PC just a few decades ago.
It's the varying spectrum of these things that is interesting. Multi Culturism, in the capitalised, hard core form, advocated actively preventing integration between communities. And advocates of this then claimed that anyone who didn't sign up to their agenda was against multiple cultures existing in the same country....
A treat for politics fans tonight on radio 4, 9pm - an interview between the late David Frost and Joe Biden, recorded thirty years ago, never broadcast before
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
Living in relationships with people from various cultures, it is quite clear to me that a large amount quantity of this stuff is made up without referencing the people involved.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order. **Sometime literally.
Armed robbers went from being the elite of the underworld to being dinosaurs, over the course of a generation.
Yes, I remember. Not from personal experience but from the news and TV dramas. Pulling off a job on a bank could almost confer National Treasure status. Especially if cockneys who looked like Michael Caine were involved. Now it's all internet conmen and horrid sex things. Yet another part of our heritage gone to the dogs.
Nice thread header, and well argued case. I had to check it was a Sunday morning
Brexit was a kick up the arse for those who had been at the top for the last 20 years or so - continuity Blair. They needed to know people didn't necessarily agree with them, but there was no choice - LibLabCon as they used to say - three cheeks of the same arse under Cam, EdM and Clegg.
The refusal to accept Leave won delayed matters and it took Boris as PM to hammer the point home, but it would be good to have some kind of neutral PM next time - I had hoped we could leave the same types in charge post Brexit, knowing they had listened to and acknowledged the view of the 52%, but they couldn't do it. Maybe now is the time
Nice thread header, and well argued case. I had to check it was a Sunday morning
Brexit was a kick up the arse for those who had been at the top for the last 20 years or so - continuity Blair. They needed to know people didn't necessarily agree with them, but there was no choice - LibLabCon as they used to say - three cheeks of the same arse under Cam, EdM and Clegg.
The refusal to accept Leave won delayed matters and it took Boris as PM to hammer the point home, but it would be good to have some kind of neutral PM next time - I had hoped we could leave the same types in charge post Brexit, knowing they had listened to and acknowledged the view of the 52%, but they couldn't do it. Maybe now is the time
Now the 48% just gets ignored instead. You only care about unity when it is your side winning.
I'm about 99% sure tonnes of people think I'm woke as hell and yet even I don't fit into Casino Royale's definition, so nobody here does either.
I do.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
To be fair, most "Marxists" I have come across have no understanding of Marxism either. It's a bit like finding Christians who've read the Bible.....
'Je ne suis pas Marxiste' as the great man himself is reputed to have said.
Whether he did or not the meaning is clear enough. The sentiment has been echoed throughout the ages by spiritual leaders who are horrified by the behaviour of some of their followers.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
Living in relationships with people from various cultures, it is quite clear to me that a large amount quantity of this stuff is made up without referencing the people involved.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order. **Sometime literally.
Armed robbers went from being the elite of the underworld to being dinosaurs, over the course of a generation.
Yes, I remember. Not from personal experience but from the news and TV dramas. Pulling off a job on a bank could almost confer National Treasure status. Especially if cockneys who looked like Michael Caine were involved. Now it's all internet conmen and horrid sex things. Yet another part of our heritage gone to the dogs.
I can remember a barrister, noted for his association with the cheeky crappies in question, declaring it was monstrous and unfair that the police were ambushing armed robbers, while wearing body armour and carrying accurate, powerful weapons.
Apparently surrounding them, shouting out "Armed Police!", waiting to be shot at and then returning fire was Not Cricket....
Nice thread header, and well argued case. I had to check it was a Sunday morning
Brexit was a kick up the arse for those who had been at the top for the last 20 years or so - continuity Blair. They needed to know people didn't necessarily agree with them, but there was no choice - LibLabCon as they used to say - three cheeks of the same arse under Cam, EdM and Clegg.
The refusal to accept Leave won delayed matters and it took Boris as PM to hammer the point home, but it would be good to have some kind of neutral PM next time - I had hoped we could leave the same types in charge post Brexit, knowing they had listened to and acknowledged the view of the 52%, but they couldn't do it. Maybe now is the time
Now the 48% just gets ignored instead. You only care about unity when it is your side winning.
I wouldn't say so. The 48% managed to delay Brexit for nearly 4 years, and twice had the chance to elect governments that would overturn the decision
Now we have a HofC that represents both Leave and Remain. From 2010-2016, when a majority of voters wanted to Leave, the parliamentary bias was overwhelmingly Remain. UKIP got 13% of the vote for 0.0625% of the seats
Over the coming months, senior Republicans and Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk to the Trump constituency without insulting them. If they don’t, then it will just be a matter of time before another ranting populist lures them away. And the next one might be less obviously absurd.
Janet Daly - Telegraph
Senior Republicans have been 'talking' and dog whistling to them for the last 4 years, to the point of going native. The GOP needs a DeTrumpification programme before pious talk of reaching out has any currency.
Yes, I think the notion the Dems must reach out to Trumpers is a bit rich. Also not a good idea electorally. It's more important they do not lose their own base and they would if they seek to accommodate Trumpers in any way that goes beyond refraining from gratuitous insults. The left of the party played a key part in the Biden win.
Comments
https://www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/how-kings-love-tennis-sealed-his-murder-604218
Everyone knows that I am a leftie - perhaps not as left wing as some people think but I am not denying I'm left wing - but therefore when I post a criticism of Johnson of course it's going to be partisan. Just as when you praise the Tory Party it's going to be partisan.
Just because it's partisan, it does not make it any less interesting or insightful, in my view.
What I don't find interesting or insightful is abusiveness or bullying, of which there is some by people on both sides. That is when I prefer to log off and I know others do as well.
I think what gets my back up is when you mindlessly start attacking lefties as "woke", because it's like the same post just regurgitated over and over again. You hate woke stuff - I am still not clear what that actually means and it seems to differ depending on the day but there you go - and that's fine but it's like me saying I hate the Tories. Everyone knows that.
I'm not saying you shouldn't stop posting it, post what you want - although I don't appreciate the abusive posting - I am just saying you get that response because it's not interesting. Your interesting posts are basically anything that isn't that!
Keep posting Casino, I enjoy your posts, they're often insightful.
The conservative party is always pragmatic about winning power, and will change if necessary to do that again as it always has before.
But, I have no desire to adopt their agricultural standards unless they level up or are equivalent.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Not among Daily Express readers it seems...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354829/donald-trump-joe-biden-us-election-2020-battleground-states-express-poll
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
And it's not just sport/golf. They've shut zoos. Botanical Gardens. etc etc. Basically the rule seems to be - if it's a "business" (even a charitable business) it must shut. If it's a public open space it remains open. Which just increases the pressure on the public open spaces, increasing the health risk.
If you're going to do a lockdown, go full China. Prevent people going out. Everything else is just relative levels of restrictions. The Government seem to have hit upon a level of restrictions which in many cases is more 'dangerous' that the "lighter" restrictions that have been replaced. We can still go out. Just not as safely.
For example, every time the campaigners went after Operation Trident (or its successors) they found that various communities actually wanted a reduction in the number of young men shooting each other. Less dead people please. Of course, there is an issue of racism in the police. But that, in the UK, doesn't negate the fact that gun crime is largely confined to certain portion of the community*
*You can blame the police for that. Once the modern police firearms units were setup, they finished off** the armed robbery gangs (largely white) in short order.
**Sometime literally.
I confess I do not understand what is meant by "cultural marxism". I do know that it is used by some as an anti-semitic dog whistle, but I don't think that's what's intended here.
CR knows absolutely nothing about Marxism though and has obviously read absolutely no Marx or Engels. "Marxist" is just an all purpose pejorative adjective he prepends to things he doesn't like. There's nothing wrong with that; I do the same with the word 'tory'.
https://twitter.com/CFBONFOX/status/1325298534627700736?s=19
What he really wants to say is "Count all the votes for me; don't count the votes for Joe."
[auotcorrect on] Trump's just a complete and utter count. [autocorrect off]
Discuss.
And he isn't the worst of the up and coming ones....
Mr Johnson woke? Forget it.
I think it's just a fairness issue about sport - whether posh or not - and reducing the excuses for contact (and standing downwind of someone for non-trivial periods of time may be the medical issue here).
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1325352424870080512?s=20
Janet Daly - Telegraph
Ladbrokes have % bands on what Khan gets in the 1st round of the 2021 Mayoral Election. 4/1 on Over 50%, and I'd probably make it 2/1. He's polling in the very high 40s on average, it's definitely a distinct possibility.
Butter
Oven Ready
BBC News - Coronavirus: Hauliers included in Denmark restrictions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54861880
In actual usage it is used often to say something you know to be offensive but then because PC is "old school" you use woke instead.
Ironically, the former state was largely the fault of lawyers working for paramilitaries in Northern Ireland....
Well said Saj
Trump said Chicago was infested, we all know what he meant.
To be honest I find the discussions on wokeness etc the most boring thing about this site. It just comes across as a bunch of rural Spectator readers assembling a series of straw men (or straw people as the PC brigade would no doubt make us say these days - see how easy it is!) that they then take an absurd delight in tearing down as if they are delivering some great truth or attacking some great shibboleth. None of it moves the debate forward one millimetre on the many very real issues affecting minority groups, not that it is designed to of course.
The EU has played Johnson like a fiddle.
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1325424362808369152?s=19
The zoe covid data has been updated and shows a fall both in new infections and in number currently infected.
The peak for number infected was 04/11/20 - ironic isn't it.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
These same people would have been calling those fighting for gay rights woke and PC just a few decades ago.
https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU
Yet the minority ought to carry on blithely othering the majority of voters.
Brexit was a kick up the arse for those who had been at the top for the last 20 years or so - continuity Blair. They needed to know people didn't necessarily agree with them, but there was no choice - LibLabCon as they used to say - three cheeks of the same arse under Cam, EdM and Clegg.
The refusal to accept Leave won delayed matters and it took Boris as PM to hammer the point home, but it would be good to have some kind of neutral PM next time - I had hoped we could leave the same types in charge post Brexit, knowing they had listened to and acknowledged the view of the 52%, but they couldn't do it. Maybe now is the time
Whether he did or not the meaning is clear enough. The sentiment has been echoed throughout the ages by spiritual leaders who are horrified by the behaviour of some of their followers.
https://council17.mulvenna.org/results/
Apparently surrounding them, shouting out "Armed Police!", waiting to be shot at and then returning fire was Not Cricket....
Now we have a HofC that represents both Leave and Remain. From 2010-2016, when a majority of voters wanted to Leave, the parliamentary bias was overwhelmingly Remain. UKIP got 13% of the vote for 0.0625% of the seats
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
Don't they have any locks on the doors out there? No wonder Donald doesn't trust the system.
Rather like COVID, really.