Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.
If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.
The UK should take the debt, it would amount to about a 12% rise, so quite serviceable. But if the UK did that what do you think you are going to get in any negotiations?
And what kind of ratings from the agencies? Who would finance a state that came into existence in a proud moment of debt repudiation?
But separatists don't give a toss about any of that. All they want is their "freedom". They know they're better than England any day of the week. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either been brainwashed by fake news from the "London media", or else they're an English b*stard to start with. That's the true mentality of Scottish separatists.
and yet still averaging around a 10 point lead. Hmmm.
As I recall, last time the polls narrowed, this happened prior. I think we're headed that way by the end of the year.
Yes but you do mention it every week. I'm pretty sure based on your past comments PM Corbyn is into his 3rd year of governing and 20 points ahead in the polls now. You do overreact to every polling change that works in Labour's favour. Look at the trend first.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
As you can hopefully seem I haven't been attacking Rashford. However:
My long-standing view is that football is institutionally corrupt, from the top to the bottom. That does not mean that Rashford is corrupt himself, but his chain of agents, manages, rights holders etc will contain a bunch of dodgy charlatans and hangers-on. Secretive deals, bungs, odd payments, all skimming off the cream.
I have little sympathy for, or anger against, a young, talented many finding himself involved in the corrupt sport. But you'd have to be an angel to come out of it unblemished. And that might become an issue for him - if someone is willing to go against the vested interests in the sport and dig deep enough.
I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.
If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.
The UK should take the debt, it would amount to about a 12% rise, so quite serviceable. But if the UK did that what do you think you are going to get in any negotiations?
And what kind of ratings from the agencies? Who would finance a state that came into existence in a proud moment of debt repudiation?
But separatists don't give a toss about any of that. All they want is their "freedom". They know they're better than England any day of the week. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either been brainwashed by fake news from the "London media", or else they're an English b*stard to start with. That's the true mentality of Scottish separatists.
You seem a tad emotional about the issue.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
EU membership would require a hard border with England. It would also legally require Scotland to move towards adopting the euro, if not to adopt it right away. What is your point about national heroes? Euro banknotes are exactly the same for all EU countries. There would no longer be any Bank of Scotland, RBS, or Clydesdale notes. Euro coins have a "national side", though, so yes, if Scotland were in the eurozone there would indeed be McEurocoins.
People could maybe get pleasure from looking at these discs while waiting in the queue to have their car boots checked for smuggled booze and fags on returning from visiting family members in Berwick.
REpeat the same old crap, on yer bike TUBA. Nice to know there are no banks in Europe nowadays , I must have missed that one. Is your IQ in double digits?
In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....
Who is the we?
Michael Gove.
I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.
Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.
Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.
Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.
It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.
The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.
Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.
Gove is however electoral poison - especially for younger age groups.
I'm first in line to be impervious to the charms of the Gover but I'm mildly intrigued by the voters of Surrey Heath; do they back him in spite of his Govieness 'cos he's a Con, or does he have some personal following? He increased his majority every GE from 2005 except interestingly the last one which I suppose was the great efflorescence of English nationalism.
Gove does have his fans - I'm one on a non-political basis. He is a politician who is really interested in doing stuff, and I'm allergic to politicians who just want to BE something. I can well imagine that he'd be a great constituency MP - if I had some personal problem that an MP could help resolve, I would absolutely trust Gove to do the necessary.
He is the nastiest , slimiest , creepy politician in the country. A vile odious little creep.
Anyway enough about his positives points. What are his negatives?
and yet still averaging around a 10 point lead. Hmmm.
As I recall, last time the polls narrowed, this happened prior. I think we're headed that way by the end of the year.
Yes but you do mention it every week. I'm pretty sure based on your past comments PM Corbyn is into his 3rd year of governing and 20 points ahead in the polls now. You do overreact to every polling change that works in Labour's favour. Look at the trend first.
I can say what I like thanks
Agreed. Would be good if it wasn't the same post over and over though.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.
Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!
That might not be his whole remuneration though.
A good agent would have a separate contract for ‘image rights’ and a cut of shirt sales etc, paid to a management company rather than through the payroll. Bonus points for that company being in Monaco or Dubai, where there’s no personal income tax.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.
I hope you're not talking about me?
I've never watched Clarkson's Farm. I don't know anything about it.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
If you think he has been destroyed electorally you have misunderstood his role in British politics over the past 20 years (and more). One of the most successful politicians of our time.
Because he gets people to vote for him. He got you to vote for him to achieve one of his aims. See how it works.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
The Right prefers winning to being right whereas the Left prefers being right to winning.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
Stuart, you are now talking absolute pish. Sturgeon is useless and a lying toerag, she has no intention of getting independence. Maybe a visit to Scotland now and again would help you out and temper your hero worship. You have the cheek to slam people who vote for Boris yet you slavishly worship Sturgeon. Get a grip.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
Tories generally aren't as zealous in their beliefs and are more willing to compromise.
To me and a few other Tories HYUFD (and I think Nigel) etc are "Blue Corbynites". Nigel views me as the same in return.
But the difference is that the Labour Party is 'a moral crusade or nothing' and views compromise as a dirty word. I'm entirely willing to compromise. Its why my whole view with Europe has been both parties need a mutually acceptable compromise.
If we can agree on half of things then I'd rather get ~75% of what I want (50% + split the difference) than not get anything at all and see Labour in charge. The far left would rather see the Tories in office than compromise their principles.
I may be misremembering, but wasn't there a scandal about PL players' tax dodges about 5 years ago? HMRC had a major clamp down, and my understanding now is that both clubs and players have to be squeaky clean, as they are under constant surveillance.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Cheap electricity doesn’t have to be exported. It can be used domestically to make manufacturing extremely competitive.
You are assuming the energy is cheap - that isn't stated within the article.
It is dirt cheap , the main costs are the fake grid charges applied.
PMQs -- Keir Starmer on good form. Perhaps he has taken up the suggestion from here of drama or voice coaching.
I'd not realised it was the sixtieth anniversary of PMQs. They kept that quiet. Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister who started it, was a half-American, Old Etonian and Oxford classicist who resigned as Prime Minister on medical grounds, by mistake. This episode was covered in The Downing Street Patient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CovfAFOwTS8
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
Indeed ... which is why I have a problem with him using his position to campaign for increased taxes for the likes of me, who don't get paid £10m a year, can't structure how they get paid and can't offset any earnings against expenses (being a poor sap on PAYE). And he's above criticism because he's campaigning for FSMs (while all the time creating Brand Marcus Rashford)? No, he's not and nor should he be - that's what investigative journalist used to be about.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
The Right prefers winning to being right whereas the Left prefers being right to winning.
Actually, I think Blair explained it quite coherently.
The left loses for a long time, somebody brings it back to the centre and it wins. The left thinks Labour isn't really Labour anymore and can win from the left, where it really belongs. Labour loses again.
And again - and again - and again.
The biggest con is that Attlee was some kind of Corbynite. He was firmly on the centre left, even facing a leadership challenge the day after the election from the left (from my recollection). Wilson was on the centre left. Smith was on the centre left. Blair was on the centre left.
It's remarkable that the PM's former chief adviser in a heavily publicised interview broadcast in prime time on state TV openly says he is part of a network of "a few dozen" people who want to take control of the country to an extent that is sufficient for them to ensure that their favoured personnel are installed in the key positions,[*] so as to save the world from itself, and Keir Starmer the so-called leader of the opposition doesn't even make a fuss a few hours later at PMQ. Does he think it would be bad manners or something? He's as pathetic as Laura Kuenssberg.
Another question Kuenssberg could have asked as well as "Can you name anybody else who belongs to this 'few dozen'?" and "Are you all British?" is "Do you have a leader?" She could also have asked how they are sure they haven't been infiltrated by a foreign power, because you don't have to think of yourself as a "plus 6 sigma" to realise foreign intelligence services might be interested in such a network.
Note
(*) Please choose your preferred word to denote this kind of operation - and if you have any difficulty in coming up with some possibles, imagine the location changing to a country in Latin America, or, for added fun, France.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.
It is strange. But it worked.
Theresa May's Tories got single digits in the polls, Theresa May the worst PM in centuries was thrown out in disgrace as a result, and the party got rehabilitated with the public.
Once the party was rehabilitated, protest parties like Farage's were destroyed.
The 2019 European Parliament election was a perfect vehicle to cast a protest vote, since the moment Brexit went ahead all MEPs elected would be removed from office automatically.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
Indeed ... which is why I have a problem with him using his position to campaign for increased taxes for the likes of me, who don't get paid £10m a year, can't structure how they get paid and can't offset any earnings against expenses (being a poor sap on PAYE). And he's above criticism because he's campaigning for FSMs (while all the time creating Brand Marcus Rashford)? No, he's not and nor should he be - that's what investigative journalist used to be about.
Any evidence to back up your claim that he is avoiding paying tax?
I've got a feeling this argument would be similar to Ken Livingstone having a go at Boris Johnson only to discover that Boris was being paid by the telegraph through PAYE.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
Current contract is £40m+ over 4 years. Current net worth £50m+.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
Both positive and negative arguments need to be made, and there isn't a good answer on the currency one. The Euro would be very unpopular. Remainder UK will not agree to a currency union. A Scottish pound would end up a highly unstable petrocurrency
More speculative bollox pulled out of your rear end no doubt.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.
Clearly you weren't thinking - why is he making that suggestion. We currently import electricity from various parts of Europe, they don't have any need for more.
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
We had a B & M just open next to our Sainsbury's too! (though we went last Saturday)
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
It used to be Jeremy Corbyn.
Now we are utilising the British catchphrase as voted for I believe some years ago on R4: "musn't grumble". Hence we (many ex-Cons voter) have fucked off rather than form mini-parties within parties.
If I may make a rash generalisation, most disaffected Tories are, er older and have lives to lead. Quite different from a fired up youth with a world to change.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Can tell you're not a football fan that's for sure!
Not massively so these days but more so than the wazzocks in government posing with hastily purchased England tops shoved over shirt and tie without removing the shop tags.
Again, if you think the right having a pop at Marcus Rashford is going to play well then please do pay attention as this implodes rapidly just as attacking the knee did.
At the moment no one has had a pop at Rashford at all.
We have him Tweeting about Speccie contacting him as required by normal journo-codes, him tweeting to confirm that yes he will benefit, various celebrity-idiots furiously brown-nosing whilst saying how much they hate something, and some media chasing the outrage bus.
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.
If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.
The UK should take the debt, it would amount to about a 12% rise, so quite serviceable. But if the UK did that what do you think you are going to get in any negotiations?
And what kind of ratings from the agencies? Who would finance a state that came into existence in a proud moment of debt repudiation?
But separatists don't give a toss about any of that. All they want is their "freedom". They know they're better than England any day of the week. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either been brainwashed by fake news from the "London media", or else they're an English b*stard to start with. That's the true mentality of Scottish separatists.
Fannybaws, he's a fearsome pirate Fannybaws, he's the scurge of the seas Fannybaws, with the black flag flying Plundering, Pillaging, spreading disease
CDC Director says Delta variant now represents 83% of sequenced samples in US
USA is about to become a Covid sh!t-show again, with less than half the population vaccinated despite almost unlimited supply. It’s a big test for Biden.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.
Tell that to Sweden.
Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..
And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.
Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!
EPL players are employees on PAYE. There are a few who may have separate sponsorship deals. Not sure if image rights are still a thing after earlier scandals. But basically, players pay tax the same as any other employee.
An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.
I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.
I hope you're not talking about me?
I've never watched Clarkson's Farm. I don't know anything about it.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.
Aww boo boo, ever the victim
Do you ever have anything constructive to add loser. Jog on.
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.
Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!
EPL players are employees on PAYE. There are a few who may have separate sponsorship deals. Not sure if image rights are still a thing after earlier scandals. But basically, players pay tax the same as any other employee.
Its much more complex than that.....As I said down thread, yes all have a portion that is PAYE, but when the media announce a 4 year contract, but it often isn't that at all, it is 4 years contracted to the club, but payments actually spread over 10+ years...
Finance in football is just weird, nothing is what it seems e.g. clubs never actually pay the selling club for a transfer. They pay a third party finance company, who then does separate deals between the selling and buying clubs about how the money will be paid from and to.
Barcelona wanted to not even pay Messi a single penny for the next 4 years, rather pay him over the rest of his life once he retired.
And yes there is also still the division of PAYE and things like image rights...every player who isn't a nobody has some sort of value of image rights. There is also the things like employing relatives, or paying their agent who is also a family member.
Ray Parlour's famous divorce, his PAYE portion was really taking the piss, its was absolutely peanuts. All of the Arsenal team at that point had similar deals.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?
Several things, I think.
The Autumn 2019 purge was brutal and (I still think) foolish in the medium term, but it did nail the Conservative Party's trousers to the mast- they can't climb down even if they want to. (Seriously, suppose the party had a Damascene conversion this afternoon. Once you rule out those who are compromised by contact with Johnson, there's barely a Cabinet left. Hunt as leader, sure, but you run out of names very quickly.)
Also, there are still various factions in the Party who seem convinced that BoJo is "really" on their side. It's obvious that he can't please Surrey and Sunderland simultaneously. You can't be global and parochial at the same time. Cutting taxes and increasing spending at once is not possible. The current Conservative coalition is full of people planning to betray allies at the necessary moment. It's just that (except for the Vote Leave clique) that moment hasn't happened yet. Though the potshots we see here from time to time show the tensions.
But ultimately, the Conservatives are better at hanging together, because that works better in UK elections. That's why the wets largely stayed on under Thatcher, even when the SDP looked so tempting. It's why we currently have one centre-right party and three or four on the centre-left.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.
Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!
EPL players are employees on PAYE. There are a few who may have separate sponsorship deals. Not sure if image rights are still a thing after earlier scandals. But basically, players pay tax the same as any other employee.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Sadly, yes ... but The Spectator should stand its ground, as should other critics of these virtue signallers (i.e. hypocrites). In a democracy, critics perform a vital role, which should not be silenced.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Can tell you're not a football fan that's for sure!
Not massively so these days but more so than the wazzocks in government posing with hastily purchased England tops shoved over shirt and tie without removing the shop tags.
Again, if you think the right having a pop at Marcus Rashford is going to play well then please do pay attention as this implodes rapidly just as attacking the knee did.
At the moment no one has had a pop at Rashford at all.
We have him Tweeting about Speccie contacting him as required by normal journo-codes, him tweeting to confirm that yes he will benefit, various celebrity-idiots furiously brown-nosing whilst saying how much they hate something, and some media chasing the outrage bus.
Not just the media, People looking to be provocative on social media too
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.
They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
Why shouldn't he do what he damn well pleases?
From building a rocket that looks like a cock, to filling his bathtub with champagne, to arguing that kids should get a fair shake of it, it's all up for grabs.
Why should the means by which he earns his primary income, or the size of that income, preclude him from any particular legal avenue of personal fulfilment.
And that includes putting up/responding to things like the Spectator article, a natural consequence of his choices.
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.
They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.
Is support for Northern Ireland’s place in the union higher or lower in Scotland than in England? Presumably nationalists such as yourself don’t have a strong view either way?
Finance in football is just weird, nothing is what it seems e.g. clubs never actually pay the selling club for a transfer. They pay a third party finance company, who then does separate deals between the selling and buying clubs about how the money will be paid from and to.
I should say rarely and among the top tier leagues. When you hear say Liverpool has paid Southampton £10m for a player, they haven't. A third party is going to pay Southampton a certain percentage of that money, and then they do a deal for the rest of it over x years. Liverpool separately do a deal with the third party company to make payments.
It isn't £10 million, it isn't paid today or tomorrow or even during the next season or two, it can many donkeys years down the line...or it could be swaps for pieces of other deals that currently are outstanding i.e. Liverpool sold somebody else for £5 million, the third party company then take a piece of the action on those repayments. It can even be things like the third party company will finance the cost of the development of a training ground upgrade in lieu of the actual money.
It is all insanely complicated, but apparently there are basically two companies who all big transfers go through.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
I voted for the Brexit Party in May 2019 as well!
Didn’t we all?
The Tories got 8.8%, and Farage got 30.5%.
FASCIST!
I voted for the independent network, one of the 7,641 who did so.
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
I've found all this talk of empty supermarket shelves a bit mystifying, since my local Sainsbury's has appeared fully stocked in recent weeks. I wonder whether it's just the luck of the draw, or if the Supermarkets are prioritising deliveries to London so that the media don't notice the problems.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
Boris need pay for little at present , he has free board and lodging , gets free everything delivered , free holidays and will make squillons , a la Cameron , when he departs. Why do we need to give him any more largesse. That absolute arse Brown is still at the trough using public money willy nilly.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m Boris says it's "common sense" to let people cram into nightclubs for ten weeks before demanding a Covid passport. It's a view.
Here's a view:
"It's a view" – one of the most annoying phrases ever known to the internet.
Of course it's a view, every opinion is. Grr. Horrible naff phrase.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
Indeed ... which is why I have a problem with him using his position to campaign for increased taxes for the likes of me, who don't get paid £10m a year, can't structure how they get paid and can't offset any earnings against expenses (being a poor sap on PAYE). And he's above criticism because he's campaigning for FSMs (while all the time creating Brand Marcus Rashford)? No, he's not and nor should he be - that's what investigative journalist used to be about.
Any evidence to back up your claim that he is avoiding paying tax?
I've got a feeling this argument would be similar to Ken Livingstone having a go at Boris Johnson only to discover that Boris was being paid by the telegraph through PAYE.
I'm not making any such claim. For all I know he is a PL footballer whose entire £10M salary is subject to PAYE. I'm saying PAYE employees cannot avoid paying the taxes that Rashford is campaigning to increase, while earning millions, which is not in doubt.
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.
They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.
Is support for Northern Ireland’s place in the union higher or lower in Scotland than in England? Presumably nationalists such as yourself don’t have a strong view either way?
Well imagine the Orange Lodge adherents will want to keep it and Scotland in the union but they are a dwindling bunch of dinosaurs. I personally would think it better to have a united Ireland but it is up to the people of NI/Eire, just as it should be to the people of Scotland to decide what they want at any time of their choosing when there are 50% + 1 wanting the choice.
An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.
I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.
This is the conundrum for the Yes people. They can't be honest.
Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.
However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.
But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.
Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.
If you want a flavour of what top tier sports stars contracts look like these days, I think you can get an idea from what is public about Patrick Mahomes or Mike Trout. None get paid £x per week / month. They get so much upfront, then it varies every year over the course of the contract and there is money left on the table for way way into the future when they have retired, there is all sorts of clauses about what is guaranteed and what is only paid if they play so many games. And that is just the salary portion of their contract which they have to make public for salary cap reasons (with the actual reddies they can structure these things in complex manners, but for salary cap rules they have to declare it as income for the years they are playing).
There is absolutely no reason to believe EPL top players don't have similar type deals, as if you are on a 5 years at £15m, most clubs don't want to just write a cheque for that every month, they want to spread / smooth this out.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?
Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.
I think he does. Rather more, in fact.
I am no fan of Rashford's politics - my view is that simply making the state pay for more and more things is superficially appealing but will make us all poorer in the long run - but if he is not sincere about his beliefs he is giving a very good act.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
I've found all this talk of empty supermarket shelves a bit mystifying, since my local Sainsbury's has appeared fully stocked in recent weeks. I wonder whether it's just the luck of the draw, or if the Supermarkets are prioritising deliveries to London so that the media don't notice the problems.
It has been the same down here on the South Coast since reports began from people like @RochdalePioneers in January.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.
It is strange. But it worked.
Theresa May's Tories got single digits in the polls, Theresa May the worst PM in centuries was thrown out in disgrace as a result, and the party got rehabilitated with the public.
Once the party was rehabilitated, protest parties like Farage's were destroyed.
The 2019 European Parliament election was a perfect vehicle to cast a protest vote, since the moment Brexit went ahead all MEPs elected would be removed from office automatically.
You are attempting to rewrite your own history Philip. Farage would be proud of you.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
Indeed ... which is why I have a problem with him using his position to campaign for increased taxes for the likes of me, who don't get paid £10m a year, can't structure how they get paid and can't offset any earnings against expenses (being a poor sap on PAYE). And he's above criticism because he's campaigning for FSMs (while all the time creating Brand Marcus Rashford)? No, he's not and nor should he be - that's what investigative journalist used to be about.
Any evidence to back up your claim that he is avoiding paying tax?
I've got a feeling this argument would be similar to Ken Livingstone having a go at Boris Johnson only to discover that Boris was being paid by the telegraph through PAYE.
I'm not making any such claim. For all I know he is a PL footballer whose entire £10M salary is subject to PAYE. I'm saying PAYE employees cannot avoid paying the taxes that Rashford is campaigning to increase, while earning millions, which is not in doubt.
Marcus Rashford has every right to help feed schoolchildren in the school holidays.
At first glance, it looks considerably more practicable than others approaches.
Using the movement of the plasma to generate electricity through induction is certainly a novel approach. The idea does seem plausible unlike, as you say, most other approaches. However, you're still going to have the problems of irradiation of the containment vessel and the need to remove large amounts of heat.
Of course. But look at the (relative) scale of the thing - the energy fluxes are much smaller than conventional fusion approaches, a great deal of the energy is being extracted directly as electricity, and the engineering challenges ought therefore to be significantly less. It's still going to take quite some time to be a workable product, but it's not quite so much an impossible dream.
Another potential problem might be the availability of helium-3, which makes up only a small fraction of terrestrial helium. And you've got to separate it from regular helium-4. Most fusion experiments use the deuterium-tritium reaction, but that's not available here since most of the energy comes out as neutrons rather than charged particles.
Doesn't a deuterium/deuterium fusion reaction produce he-3?
It does indeed, but that requires very high temperatures (400-500 million degrees C). Virtually all of the He3 used today comes from the decay of the tritium used in nuclear warheads (as I just discovered on Wikipedia :-)
Not particularly attractive to scale up tritium production, though, given its role in producing efficient nuclear warheads ?
NASA have been looking at extracting lunar He3 since the 1980s. If efficient fusion reactors could be developed, it would be more than economically feasible to recover lunar He3, which represents an energy resource several times the size of earthbound hydrocarbons. It's the most (only ?) valuable potential resource on the moon.
The byproducts from any such lunar processing - nitrogen, H2, and CO2 - might be very useful in sustaining a lunar colony.
Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.
They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.
Is support for Northern Ireland’s place in the union higher or lower in Scotland than in England? Presumably nationalists such as yourself don’t have a strong view either way?
Well imagine the Orange Lodge adherents will want to keep it and Scotland in the union but they are a dwindling bunch of dinosaurs. I personally would think it better to have a united Ireland but it is up to the people of NI/Eire, just as it should be to the people of Scotland to decide what they want at any time of their choosing when there are 50% + 1 wanting the choice.
The people of Scotland do not want an indyref2 until 2025 at the earliest
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.
It is strange. But it worked.
Theresa May's Tories got single digits in the polls, Theresa May the worst PM in centuries was thrown out in disgrace as a result, and the party got rehabilitated with the public.
Once the party was rehabilitated, protest parties like Farage's were destroyed.
The 2019 European Parliament election was a perfect vehicle to cast a protest vote, since the moment Brexit went ahead all MEPs elected would be removed from office automatically.
You are attempting to rewrite your own history Philip. Farage would be proud of you.
I wonder if Mike could have installed a "face-palm" button
An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.
I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.
This is the conundrum for the Yes people. They can't be honest.
Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.
However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.
But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.
Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.
I disagree that the debate is unreal or people are unengaged. A key point that many south of border don't get is that most Scots are nationalists. We're comfortable with our nationality on the whole. The debate is about where Scotland's interest lies. Is it by being independent or as a part of a union (and since Brexit, which union?) Money is a factor, an important one, but not necessarily the biggest for either camp. Nor should it be.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
"Not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers"
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?
Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.
That's a VERY high bar you're setting to earn your approval when it comes to young black footballers from working class backgrounds campaigning for government action to end child food poverty. Perhaps some sweet day one of them will manage to clear it. I wonder what you'll use then as a reason to snipe? Will you be able to come up with something new and creative? I say yes. My money's on you to rise to the challenge.
Scotland continues to drop encouragingly. In my view, this is now well beyond the sort of drop which could be *just* as the result of the school summer holidays and the associated drop in testing. Encouraging. Wales has now had two consecutive days where the number reported was less than a week ago - but that was after an absolutely massive day on Monday. Too early to tell yet whether Wales has turned the tide but room for hope. Northern Ireland - well into the exponential phase now. Tripling in a week. Wipes out the reductions in Scotland and Wales.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Sadly, yes ... but The Spectator should stand its ground, as should other critics of these virtue signallers (i.e. hypocrites). In a democracy, critics perform a vital role, which should not be silenced.
I am not attacking the rights of the press to go and sniff out a story. That is crucial. I am attacking the element of the right wing who have decided that a punt at Rashford will play well. He is a stupid target for them to go for.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
No, I guarantee I wouldn't support him if he campaigned to defund the police.
There's no need to be abusive. I just hold the opinion that Marcus Rashford's motives are not entirely altruistic and he deserves to face scrutiny. If he's going to set himself up as a paragon of virtue he'd better be squeaky clean ... and it's the job of journalists to investigate. The Spectator should not be bullied into backing down on this.
I admit, I have a problem with rich lefties spending other people's money on vanity projects. I don't think that opinion is especially beyond the pale but the fact you reacted in the way you did might explain why we are in the state we are in as far as social discourse is concerned.
Marcus Rashford could have funded any number of good causes (all tax deductible ;-)) anonymously but he's not doing that. He's campaigning to raise taxes on ordinarily people, while raising his personal profile and increasing his commercial value, which he's absolutely entitled to do. I'm also allowed to criticise his actions.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.
That's a VERY high bar you're setting to earn your approval when it comes to young black footballers from working class backgrounds campaigning for government action to end child food poverty. Perhaps some sweet day one of them will manage to clear it. I wonder what you'll use then as a reason to snipe? Will you be able to come up with something new and creative? I say yes. My money's on you to rise to the challenge.
A high bar?? He will be left with £25 million plus earning a million a month. How will he cope?
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist. Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
I voted for the Brexit Party in May 2019 as well!
Didn’t we all?
The Tories got 8.8%, and Farage got 30.5%.
30.5% of those that voted. It doesn't mean even those are actually fascist, but it is fair to argue that perhaps they voted for a pseudo-fascist party and are in denial. Farage has been accused of being a racist by Alan Sked the founder of UKIP and Farage has not denied it. He is also a nationalist and a populist. He is the founder of the party, essentially a vanity party, that was all about him, a person accused of being a racist. All of that adds up to the BXP being pretty similar to fascist in my book, but hey, it is just a label. Others say it is not a fascist party and either did not do their research or knowingly voted for a man that delighted and still delights in peddling pretty unpleasant hatred. Let it be on your conscience.
The free speech Tories seem very keen on cancelling Rashford because he doesn't say what they want to hear...
Nonsense. He seems to be attempting to use his status in good causes. In doing so of course he inevitably puts himself and his finances under media scrutiny. What is wrong with that? There is no reason surely why he should be exempt from scrutiny? Can you think of one? Do share.
An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.
I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.
This is the conundrum for the Yes people. They can't be honest.
Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.
However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.
But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.
Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.
I disagree that the debate is unreal or people are unengaged. A key point that many south of border don't get is that most Scots are nationalists. We're comfortable with our nationality on the whole. The debate is about where Scotland's interest lies. Is it by being independent or as a part of a union (and since Brexit, which union?) Money is a factor, an important one, but not necessarily the biggest for either camp. Nor should it be.
More on this. I think making the Union work would be a decisive factor for the swing vote in Scotland. The perception is that it's not really happening now.
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
I've found all this talk of empty supermarket shelves a bit mystifying, since my local Sainsbury's has appeared fully stocked in recent weeks. I wonder whether it's just the luck of the draw, or if the Supermarkets are prioritising deliveries to London so that the media don't notice the problems.
It has been the same down here on the South Coast since reports began from people like @RochdalePioneers in January.
Not so in West Wales, metres of shelves of bananas and oranges, but very few carrots, asparagus, strawberries, or mushrooms. Many shelves with upturned veg boxes with pictures of cabbages and carrots. No Diet Coke in bottles, and this isn't everything.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?
Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.
Yep, sadly the hard right, people like Philip, infiltrated the Tory Party. He is the equivalent of the Corbynites in Labour.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.
Don't worry on my account. I have no problem with being offended. You go ahead and engage in whatever political activism you want as long as I get the right to criticise you. How about that as a deal?
Comments
Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.
I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.
My long-standing view is that football is institutionally corrupt, from the top to the bottom. That does not mean that Rashford is corrupt himself, but his chain of agents, manages, rights holders etc will contain a bunch of dodgy charlatans and hangers-on. Secretive deals, bungs, odd payments, all skimming off the cream.
I have little sympathy for, or anger against, a young, talented many finding himself involved in the corrupt sport. But you'd have to be an angel to come out of it unblemished. And that might become an issue for him - if someone is willing to go against the vested interests in the sport and dig deep enough.
I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.
Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.
Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.
A good agent would have a separate contract for ‘image rights’ and a cut of shirt sales etc, paid to a management company rather than through the payroll. Bonus points for that company being in Monaco or Dubai, where there’s no personal income tax.
I've never watched Clarkson's Farm. I don't know anything about it.
Because he gets people to vote for him. He got you to vote for him to achieve one of his aims. See how it works.
https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1417494414415519751
CDC Director says Delta variant now represents 83% of sequenced samples in US
To me and a few other Tories HYUFD (and I think Nigel) etc are "Blue Corbynites". Nigel views me as the same in return.
But the difference is that the Labour Party is 'a moral crusade or nothing' and views compromise as a dirty word. I'm entirely willing to compromise. Its why my whole view with Europe has been both parties need a mutually acceptable compromise.
If we can agree on half of things then I'd rather get ~75% of what I want (50% + split the difference) than not get anything at all and see Labour in charge. The far left would rather see the Tories in office than compromise their principles.
Biden missed his July 4th target.
I'd not realised it was the sixtieth anniversary of PMQs. They kept that quiet. Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister who started it, was a half-American, Old Etonian and Oxford classicist who resigned as Prime Minister on medical grounds, by mistake. This episode was covered in The Downing Street Patient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CovfAFOwTS8
The book Punch and Judy Politics is an interesting guide to PMQs written by former Miliband staffers.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
The left loses for a long time, somebody brings it back to the centre and it wins. The left thinks Labour isn't really Labour anymore and can win from the left, where it really belongs. Labour loses again.
And again - and again - and again.
The biggest con is that Attlee was some kind of Corbynite. He was firmly on the centre left, even facing a leadership challenge the day after the election from the left (from my recollection). Wilson was on the centre left. Smith was on the centre left. Blair was on the centre left.
Another question Kuenssberg could have asked as well as "Can you name anybody else who belongs to this 'few dozen'?" and "Are you all British?" is "Do you have a leader?" She could also have asked how they are sure they haven't been infiltrated by a foreign power, because you don't have to think of yourself as a "plus 6 sigma" to realise foreign intelligence services might be interested in such a network.
Note
(*) Please choose your preferred word to denote this kind of operation - and if you have any difficulty in coming up with some possibles, imagine the location changing to a country in Latin America, or, for added fun, France.
Theresa May's Tories got single digits in the polls, Theresa May the worst PM in centuries was thrown out in disgrace as a result, and the party got rehabilitated with the public.
Once the party was rehabilitated, protest parties like Farage's were destroyed.
The 2019 European Parliament election was a perfect vehicle to cast a protest vote, since the moment Brexit went ahead all MEPs elected would be removed from office automatically.
I've got a feeling this argument would be similar to Ken Livingstone having a go at Boris Johnson only to discover that Boris was being paid by the telegraph through PAYE.
A future of window cleaning beckons ...
Now we are utilising the British catchphrase as voted for I believe some years ago on R4: "musn't grumble". Hence we (many ex-Cons voter) have fucked off rather than form mini-parties within parties.
If I may make a rash generalisation, most disaffected Tories are, er older and have lives to lead. Quite different from a fired up youth with a world to change.
We have him Tweeting about Speccie contacting him as required by normal journo-codes, him tweeting to confirm that yes he will benefit, various celebrity-idiots furiously brown-nosing whilst saying how much they hate something, and some media chasing the outrage bus.
To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=749wEN2cuFA
Fannybaws, he's a fearsome pirate
Fannybaws, he's the scurge of the seas
Fannybaws, with the black flag flying
Plundering, Pillaging, spreading disease
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9809661/Covid-19-UK-TWO-THIRDS-people-aged-16-24-coronavirus-antibodies.html
I suppose not to be unexpected, but again the wave is now moving through older people.
I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.
Finance in football is just weird, nothing is what it seems e.g. clubs never actually pay the selling club for a transfer. They pay a third party finance company, who then does separate deals between the selling and buying clubs about how the money will be paid from and to.
Barcelona wanted to not even pay Messi a single penny for the next 4 years, rather pay him over the rest of his life once he retired.
And yes there is also still the division of PAYE and things like image rights...every player who isn't a nobody has some sort of value of image rights. There is also the things like employing relatives, or paying their agent who is also a family member.
Ray Parlour's famous divorce, his PAYE portion was really taking the piss, its was absolutely peanuts. All of the Arsenal team at that point had similar deals.
The Tories got 8.8%, and Farage got 30.5%.
The Autumn 2019 purge was brutal and (I still think) foolish in the medium term, but it did nail the Conservative Party's trousers to the mast- they can't climb down even if they want to. (Seriously, suppose the party had a Damascene conversion this afternoon. Once you rule out those who are compromised by contact with Johnson, there's barely a Cabinet left. Hunt as leader, sure, but you run out of names very quickly.)
Also, there are still various factions in the Party who seem convinced that BoJo is "really" on their side. It's obvious that he can't please Surrey and Sunderland simultaneously. You can't be global and parochial at the same time. Cutting taxes and increasing spending at once is not possible. The current Conservative coalition is full of people planning to betray allies at the necessary moment. It's just that (except for the Vote Leave clique) that moment hasn't happened yet. Though the potshots we see here from time to time show the tensions.
But ultimately, the Conservatives are better at hanging together, because that works better in UK elections. That's why the wets largely stayed on under Thatcher, even when the SDP looked so tempting. It's why we currently have one centre-right party and three or four on the centre-left.
From building a rocket that looks like a cock, to filling his bathtub with champagne, to arguing that kids should get a fair shake of it, it's all up for grabs.
Why should the means by which he earns his primary income, or the size of that income, preclude him from any particular legal avenue of personal fulfilment.
And that includes putting up/responding to things like the Spectator article, a natural consequence of his choices.
It isn't £10 million, it isn't paid today or tomorrow or even during the next season or two, it can many donkeys years down the line...or it could be swaps for pieces of other deals that currently are outstanding i.e. Liverpool sold somebody else for £5 million, the third party company then take a piece of the action on those repayments. It can even be things like the third party company will finance the cost of the development of a training ground upgrade in lieu of the actual money.
It is all insanely complicated, but apparently there are basically two companies who all big transfers go through.
"It's a view" – one of the most annoying phrases ever known to the internet.
Of course it's a view, every opinion is. Grr. Horrible naff phrase.
Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.
However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.
But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.
Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.
There is absolutely no reason to believe EPL top players don't have similar type deals, as if you are on a 5 years at £15m, most clubs don't want to just write a cheque for that every month, they want to spread / smooth this out.
Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.
I am no fan of Rashford's politics - my view is that simply making the state pay for more and more things is superficially appealing but will make us all poorer in the long run - but if he is not sincere about his beliefs he is giving a very good act.
Am I drunk
NASA have been looking at extracting lunar He3 since the 1980s. If efficient fusion reactors could be developed, it would be more than economically feasible to recover lunar He3, which represents an energy resource several times the size of earthbound hydrocarbons. It's the most (only ?) valuable potential resource on the moon.
The byproducts from any such lunar processing - nitrogen, H2, and CO2 - might be very useful in sustaining a lunar colony.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
Great slogan.
positives / deaths (positives / deaths a week ago)
Sco: 1686 / 7 (2636 /11)
Wal: 941 / 1 (1135 / 1)
NI: 1973 / 2 (636 / 1)
Scotland continues to drop encouragingly. In my view, this is now well beyond the sort of drop which could be *just* as the result of the school summer holidays and the associated drop in testing. Encouraging.
Wales has now had two consecutive days where the number reported was less than a week ago - but that was after an absolutely massive day on Monday. Too early to tell yet whether Wales has turned the tide but room for hope.
Northern Ireland - well into the exponential phase now. Tripling in a week. Wipes out the reductions in Scotland and Wales.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57910744
Dom Sibley still in the squad...shakes head.
There's no need to be abusive. I just hold the opinion that Marcus Rashford's motives are not entirely altruistic and he deserves to face scrutiny. If he's going to set himself up as a paragon of virtue he'd better be squeaky clean ... and it's the job of journalists to investigate. The Spectator should not be bullied into backing down on this.
I admit, I have a problem with rich lefties spending other people's money on vanity projects. I don't think that opinion is especially beyond the pale but the fact you reacted in the way you did might explain why we are in the state we are in as far as social discourse is concerned.
Marcus Rashford could have funded any number of good causes (all tax deductible ;-)) anonymously but he's not doing that. He's campaigning to raise taxes on ordinarily people, while raising his personal profile and increasing his commercial value, which he's absolutely entitled to do. I'm also allowed to criticise his actions.
Did the information get to him before or after PMQs? Lunchtime is rather ambiguous.