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.
But the scrutiny by some supporters of Johnson seems particularly hostile because some of Rashford's campaigns have, by their nature flown in the face of Government policy.
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.
If making the Union work requires rejoining the EU then obviously that will not be possible but in any case Scotland would not really be voting for full indepedence anyway, just to swap the EU for the UK.
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.
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.
Northern Ireland has lower vax uptake than any other nation in the UK, substantially so.
And - hoorah - Hasseeb Hameed. I am absolutely delighted for him. Has there ever been a more dramatic fall out of form? I had him down as the future of England opening. I am chuffed silly he is back.
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?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
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.
You'd give him the green light to campaign for lower taxes funded by government spending cuts then, would you? Guess you would.
No, wait! That would still get your goat because he himself would benefit from those lower taxes, wouldn't he? So that would be VENAL.
Oh god. Such a toughie. Or maybe not. Maybe it's very simple. Marcus needs to just shut up, basically, if he wants to stay on the right side of you.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
And - hoorah - Hasseeb Hameed. I am absolutely delighted for him. Has there ever been a more dramatic fall out of form? I had him down as the future of England opening. I am chuffed silly he is back.
They picked him in the last squad and didn't give him a game. When he first got his chance in test cricket, he just looked the real deal.
I don't follow county cricket closely enough to have any opinion on what happened or what he is like now.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
How soon did they reintroduce restrictions after lifting them?
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.
But the scrutiny by some supporters of Johnson seems particularly hostile because some of Rashford's campaigns have, by their nature flown in the face of Government policy.
So what. Since when did politicians play nice? He's a big boy. Have you read the vitriol on here day in day out about the PM? Once you choose to enter the political arena it's all fair game.
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.
Why are you not happy for a son of immigrants from a council estate in Manchester to spend his fortune and his time as he wishes? I don't see you bellyaching about The Duke of Westminster, Richard Branson or the very late Peter Rachman.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
Yes, extraordinary stuff there. Be interesting to see if other nations follow similar paths when they open up.
And - hoorah - Hasseeb Hameed. I am absolutely delighted for him. Has there ever been a more dramatic fall out of form? I had him down as the future of England opening. I am chuffed silly he is back.
They picked him in the last squad and didn't give him a game. When he first got his chance in test cricket, he just looked the real deal.
I don't follow county cricket closely enough to have any opinion on what happened or what he is like now.
When he came back from his injury, he was absolutely awful for Lancashire. Struggled to average above 10 for two seasons. He's at Nottinghamshire now, and has somehow - luck, a flash of inspiration from somewhere, a change of scene, sheer bloody hard work - got back to the edges of the sort of form he once showed.
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.
Because some people have a lot of infuence in certain directions, yet they aren't scrutinised to a similar degree.
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.
I think devo max would be a good compromise. Completely decouple the political system and offer the same to Wales and NI. There will need to be a balancing constitutional settlement for England, probably with a change to the electoral system, and a better system for bicameral scrutiny of laws passed . Scottish MPs can act as a revising chamber and also vote of UK only laws relating to defence and trade, trade regulation etc. "Presidency" of the UK could be rotated through the 4 nations every two years.
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?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
He is fully entitled to involve himself in politics if he wishes and must accept all the plaudits and brickbats that come with the territory.
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.
Why are you not happy for a son of immigrants from a council estate in Manchester to spend his fortune and his time as he wishes? I don't see you bellyaching about The Duke of Westminster, Richard Branson or the very late Peter Rachman.
Not sure Beardy Branson is a good example, lots of people have pointed out he is a massive tax dodger advocate for tax efficiency. I don't believe he has technically lived in the UK for absolutely ages.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
It seems so.
Plenty of people down the years have voted for parties they don't support - whether it be because of it being a protest vote, a tactical vote or other.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
How soon did they reintroduce restrictions after lifting them?
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.
Despite some of the more desperate comments on here the supermarkets thing is pretty simple: 1. If GB implemented the checks and barriers to products coming in as is required - and has been in NI - then we would have had significant shortages. As they have in NI. We haven't because we haven't... 2. The driver shortage is getting worse and will continue to get worse. There aren't enough drivers and there aren't going to be enough until we remove the barriers to EU drivers and vehicles we have imposed. 3. Shortages of drivers - and thus deliveries - are uncontrolled. Any uncontrolled short is as it says on the tin - uncontrolled. That means some deliveries / stores / regions / suppliers will be very short and others delivered in full. And then vice-versa. So "I haven't got any shortages" is not proof of no shortages.
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.
When will the Labour Party be rehabilitated?
I am not a supporter or member of the Labour Party, but I think the answer to your question is a long time. I would like to see both parties split. Let the populists in both parties have their fun and make their case, and the grown ups can start to look properly at running the country.
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.
Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
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.
But the scrutiny by some supporters of Johnson seems particularly hostile because some of Rashford's campaigns have, by their nature flown in the face of Government policy.
So what. Since when did politicians play nice? He's a big boy. Have you read the vitriol on here day in day out about the PM? Once you choose to enter the political arena it's all fair game.
Did he enter politics?
My interpretation was that he felt, poor children should get a nutritious meal each day during the school holidays. Johnson did not agree... initially, and this is where the hostility arose.
If his campaign had been to look after stray dogs during the pandemic, Carrie would have been on board, and all would have been fine.
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.
Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
Maughty naughty, your far right wing misogyny against Mrs May showing itself again Philip
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.
Is that possible without Northern Ireland descending into violence?
How do you convince Unionists in Northern Ireland that they haven't been sacrificed so that Johnson could win an election on the basis of getting Brexit done when that's precisely what happened?
If the reverse had happened - Nationalists in Northern Ireland being abandoned by Dublin so a deal could be done - it would be a similarly nightmarish scenario.
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.
You're just too thick it seems to read what is written. Considering I was in the party from ~2003 to 2017, then again from 2019 to date, how is that infiltration? I returned home to the Tories after leaving it temporarily while an authoritarian was in charge.
TSE, David Herdson etc have been out of the party now for longer than I was. If they were to return to the party post-Boris would you view that as infiltration.
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.
You can never be 100% sure about other people. Not even those closest to you. But the overwhelming evidence and all logic says that Marcus Rashford's political activism is driven primarily by genuine concern for the less well off (in circumstances like he once was) rather than a sordid desire to raise his profile, be loved, make more money, bag a knighthood etc. To believe - in the face of all the evidence and logic - that this latter is what's driving him is NOT cynicism. People taking that view are not showing themselves as seasoned, wise and wordly types. They're showing themselves as small of brain and mean of spirit. Sorry, but it has to be said.
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.
If making the Union work requires rejoining the EU then obviously that will not be possible but in any case Scotland would not really be voting for full indepedence anyway, just to swap the EU for the UK.
Devomax however might be possible
Not a concern for all English obviously, but any English people who do care about the United Kingdom are advised not to talk about "EU isn't full independence anyway". Scots can if they wish vote for independence and the EU. Disparaging a Scottish lack of commitment to independence is somewhat disrespectful, as well as counterproductive to the continuation of the UK.
Edge cases for Devomax or whatever we want to call it. Can Scotland sign up to Erasmus if England sticks with the apparently inferior Turing scheme? Can Scotland and the EU have official representation?
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.
Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
Maughty naughty, your far right wing misogyny against Mrs May showing itself again Philip
You may adore politicians that send messages to ethnic minority areas telling people to go home to where they come from, but I don't.
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.
I think devo max would be a good compromise. Completely decouple the political system and offer the same to Wales and NI. There will need to be a balancing constitutional settlement for England, probably with a change to the electoral system, and a better system for bicameral scrutiny of laws passed . Scottish MPs can act as a revising chamber and also vote of UK only laws relating to defence and trade, trade regulation etc. "Presidency" of the UK could be rotated through the 4 nations every two years.
So you'd potentially have a Sinn Fein First Minister as "President" of the UK in charge of British forces?
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
All the time.
You vote for a candidate. I don’t support the Tories but I voted Tory at our local elections simply as the candidate has done a great job as a councillor. I voted Tory then but I’m not a supporter. I vote labour in general elections.
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.
Several items missing or replacements in my delivery this week.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
Yes, extraordinary stuff there. Be interesting to see if other nations follow similar paths when they open up.
More interesting to see what happens when the Netherlands tries to open nightclubs again.
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.
You can never be 100% sure about other people. Not even those closest to you. But the overwhelming evidence and all logic says that Marcus Rashford's political activism is driven primarily by genuine concern for the less well off (in circumstances like he once was) rather than a sordid desire to raise his profile, be loved, make more money, bag a knighthood etc. To believe - in the face of all the evidence and logic - that this latter is what's driving him is NOT cynicism. People taking that view are not showing themselves as seasoned, wise and wordly types. They're showing themselves as small of brain and mean of spirit. Sorry, but it has to be said.
The truth is it is a bit of both. I don't doubt Rashford believes in the cause, but RocNation who manage him, control his social media, etc are quite open that their business model is to use political activism to drive their clients profile for both change and gain.
They have identified that they can both leverage their clients star power to enable change and that also brands want to align themselves with individuals who are trying to do some good, rather than just are good at their chosen sport.
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.
Why are you not happy for a son of immigrants from a council estate in Manchester to spend his fortune and his time as he wishes? I don't see you bellyaching about The Duke of Westminster, Richard Branson or the very late Peter Rachman.
Not sure Beardy Branson is a good example, lots of people have pointed out he is a massive tax dodger advocate for tax efficiency. I don't believe he has technically lived in the UK for absolutely ages.
Doesn't he live on a boat in Maida Vale?
Arguably, Peter Rachman hasn't either since 1962. So another poor example.
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?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 3h Keir Starmer has an open goal here to defeat the Gov’t, I’ve spoken to two Conservative MPs that will fight it and rumours now of a growing list. The young would love him for it.. Those that know these things are discriminatory would think better of him..
I fully expect Starmer to dither for weeks and then finally whip his MPs to support Johnson.
Very much hope he surprises me and doesn't do this.
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?
So a wealthy person can't campaign for government to spend more money on something unless they cough up a chunk of their own.
That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.
If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.
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?
Sounds fine, still interested in the criteria for approval of political criticism? Is it the money? That he doesnt belong to a party? That he is on the left? Not educated enough? Too young?
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
Well the obvious answer would be that I get to vote for the policies and tax plans of Starmer, Johnson et al but I don't remember voting for Marcus Rashford. I have no problem with him contributing to political life but, if that's what he wants to do, then I (or The Spectator) get to scrutinize (and disagree with) his political views, question his motives and highlight any hypocrisy (just as Starmer, Johnson et al have to face).
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
Thanks for the answer, but "I have no problem with him contributing to political life" seems quite contradictory to "I don't approve of him becoming a political activist" a few minutes earlier. It is clearly not a no go area for criticism as you and many others are doing so. It is a free country, but expect such contradictions to be questioned and it is difficult not to assume that the real reason for the criticism is simply you don't like his politics and don't want to listen it. That assumption may be incorrect on my part, but I still don't understand.
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.
If making the Union work requires rejoining the EU then obviously that will not be possible but in any case Scotland would not really be voting for full indepedence anyway, just to swap the EU for the UK.
Devomax however might be possible
Not a concern for all English obviously, but any English people who do care about the United Kingdom are advised not to talk about "EU isn't full independence anyway". Scots can if they wish vote for independence and the EU. Disparaging a Scottish lack of commitment to independence is somewhat disrespectful, as well as counterproductive to the continuation of the UK.
Edge cases for Devomax or whatever we want to call it. Can Scotland sign up to Erasmus if England sticks with the apparently inferior Turing scheme? Can Scotland and the EU have official representation?
Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the SNP no less, certainly thinks Scotland rejoining the EU would not be full independence, despite having campaigned for and voted for Scottish independence in 2014
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.
Is that possible without Northern Ireland descending into violence?
How do you convince Unionists in Northern Ireland that they haven't been sacrificed so that Johnson could win an election on the basis of getting Brexit done when that's precisely what happened?
If the reverse had happened - Nationalists in Northern Ireland being abandoned by Dublin so a deal could be done - it would be a similarly nightmarish scenario.
The point is, deliberately stirring up resentment against the Protocol causes that descent into violence. The Protocol is suboptimal for everyone but better than a specific alternative for everyone, including NI Unionists, which they would realise if they weren't in this spiral of Brexit induced self-harm*.
Accepting the situation and making the best of it is best course right now.
* NI Unionists have an interest in Northern Ireland being a success, because nobody apart from them cares about the place. They need enough Northern Ireland catholics and non-aligned to opt for an easy life and the status quo and not push them to think a United Ireland is a better option. This was pretty much the consensus before Brexit. Those people want the Protocol. NI Unionists should respect that. Unfortunately they are in cycle of disastrous from their PoV choices on Brexit, on throwing their lot in with English nationalists and now the Protocol. You can't stop people from self-harm but you can try to dissuade.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
How soon did they reintroduce restrictions after lifting them?
England could be plunged back into a quasi-lockdown in just a fortnight because Covid hospital admissions are running higher than some of the Government's scientific advisers predicted, it was claimed today.
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.
Because some people have a lot of infuence in certain directions, yet they aren't scrutinised to a similar degree.
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.
But the scrutiny by some supporters of Johnson seems particularly hostile because some of Rashford's campaigns have, by their nature flown in the face of Government policy.
So what. Since when did politicians play nice? He's a big boy. Have you read the vitriol on here day in day out about the PM? Once you choose to enter the political arena it's all fair game.
Did he enter politics?
My interpretation was that he felt, poor children should get a nutritious meal each day during the school holidays. Johnson did not agree... initially, and this is where the hostility arose.
If his campaign had been to look after stray dogs during the pandemic, Carrie would have been on board, and all would have been fine.
I'm unclear what you mean. Is child poverty not a political issue?
If you vote for a party, you are tacitly endorsing them, whether you think so or not.
So in your eyes everyone in the 2019 European Parliament elections who voted Labour endorsed Antisemitism and everyone in the same elections who voted Tory endorsed sending Go Home vans into London?
I wonder what's going on with the non-announcement of the NHS pay rise.
I suspect it may be less about agreeing the pay-rise than about how it gets paid for. So if the Treasury says, you can have the payrise but it has to come out of existing budgets, Board managers will then say, OK how many bankruptcies do you want?
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.
More complete bollox speculation. You have NOT a clue what the position would be and we have plenty of financial implications being heaped on us as it is so it would be no different to being shackled as we are now or going it alone. We could only be better as we would not be funding the vultures picking the public purse of billions or funding English vanity projects.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
If you vote for a party, you are tacitly endorsing them, whether you think so or not.
So in your eyes everyone in the 2019 European Parliament elections who voted Labour endorsed Antisemitism and everyone in the same elections who voted Tory endorsed sending Go Home vans into London?
Yes, I think I endorsed anti-Semitism by voting for Labour. Which I why I spend much time here apologising for that
Maughty naughty, your far right wing misogyny against Mrs May showing itself again Philip
You may adore politicians that send messages to ethnic minority areas telling people to go home to where they come from, but I don't.
It clearly says "in the UK illegally?".
Its still every bit as racist and xenophobic as that Breaking Point poster. Sending vans into minority areas saying "Go Home" is pure evil, even if xenophobes like @Nigel_Foremain see nothing wrong with saying to people "go back to where you came from".
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.
Surrey isn't as parochial as all that surely. Not as global as our northern factories, but getting there.
BTW you could say that Labour can't please Cambridge and Bootle at the same time, but I think it's more complicated than that.
I wonder what's going on with the non-announcement of the NHS pay rise.
I suspect it may be less about agreeing the pay-rise than about how it gets paid for. So if the Treasury says, you can have the payrise but it has to come out of existing budgets, Board managers will then say, OK how many bankruptcies do you want?
That's certainly a problem, but not normally the sort of thing that stops the Johnson Ministry from making an announcement.
I'm wondering whether they're experimenting with pre-briefing positive announcements, then not making them, and seeing whether the positive press from the pre-briefing sticks.
If they can get the political credit for a 3% pay rise for the NHS without anyone having to actually pay for it then that would be ideal from their point of view.
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?
So a wealthy person can't campaign for government to spend more money on something unless they cough up a chunk of their own.
That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.
If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.
I think the term "put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.
Im afraid that if a extremely rich person is campaigning for the Government to spend taxpayers money on some cause then they should donate a decent wedge to that cause.
He has 8 houses, does he need 8 houses? There are numerous poor people in Manchester living in run down over crowded conditions. Why not give away some of these houses?
If you vote for a party, you are tacitly endorsing them, whether you think so or not.
So in your eyes everyone in the 2019 European Parliament elections who voted Labour endorsed Antisemitism and everyone in the same elections who voted Tory endorsed sending Go Home vans into London?
Yes, I think I endorsed anti-Semitism by voting for Labour. Which I why I spend much time here apologising for that
Fair enough for you. I'm curious when those who endorsed Go Home vans being sent into London will apologise for making the person who did that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
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.
The problem with that is that the Spectator has not said anything at all yet afaics.
All we have is an Outrage Bus full of slebs and politicos telling us how horrible the Spectator is, and how much they hate it, based on a projection of their own assumptions.
(Unless they knew more when they said it than I have seen).
Quite happy to be generally skeptical about the tax affairs of footballers, but not to read that general into the particular of Marcus Rashford without evidence, given the industrial scale of tax avoidance / tax evasion that so many have indulged in.
I'm thoroughly enjoying the exhibition of unconscious self-importance from Knee-jerking Nish Kumar and the rest.
The free speech Tories seem very keen on cancelling Rashford because he doesn't say what they want to hear...
It's scrutiny tbf. That woman from Kid's Company used her position to shield the charity from proper scrutiny and it turned into a disaster for the state and the kids. I'm not suggesting that Rashford is doing the same thing and in general I'm fairly supportive of what he wants to achieve. It doesn't exempt him from scrutiny, however. It's the same as any politician would get and Rashford is a functioning as a quasi politician wrt some issues.
Netherlands-watch: 6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
How soon did they reintroduce restrictions after lifting them?
Is that what happened?
Reintroduced restrictions on July 9th.
Yep. From friends living there it was really weird and a bit of a farce. Pretty much fully opened up, delta arrives, completely nutty growth in cases, slam the brakes on with restrictions again. Like the gif Francis just posted!
Now, on easing restrictions, vaccinations were quite a bit lower than ours, now pretty close (still lagging on second dose, but not by a great deal). So, hopefully we'll do better here, but we'll see.
The rise and fall are both spectacular. The measures introduced are not super-strict, though.[1] So it would be interesting to know whether the fall is the restrictions (even though not that strict), delta hitting wall due to vaccination plus infection (good news for us, if so) or self-lockdown given the pretty shocking explosion of cases (our friends were pretty much staying at home and gave the impression this was common, but that's anecdata).
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.
You'd give him the green light to campaign for lower taxes funded by government spending cuts then, would you? Guess you would.
No, wait! That would still get your goat because he himself would benefit from those lower taxes, wouldn't he? So that would be VENAL.
Oh god. Such a toughie. Or maybe not. Maybe it's very simple. Marcus needs to just shut up, basically, if he wants to stay on the right side of you.
No, you've got me all wrong (I think / hope) - I don't want Marcus to shut up. He's absolutely entitled to do and say whatever he likes but he should be opened up for scrutiny when he gets involved in politics. He shouldn't be protected by PR minders or his media friends. I haven't seen Marcus Rashford grilled by Andrew Neil (The Spectator article notwithstanding).
I try not to be hypocritical and hope my position on taxation is entirely consistent - I would certainly support a campaign for lower taxes and spending cuts and good luck to Marcus Rashford if he also benefits from that.
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.
You can never be 100% sure about other people. Not even those closest to you. But the overwhelming evidence and all logic says that Marcus Rashford's political activism is driven primarily by genuine concern for the less well off (in circumstances like he once was) rather than a sordid desire to raise his profile, be loved, make more money, bag a knighthood etc. To believe - in the face of all the evidence and logic - that this latter is what's driving him is NOT cynicism. People taking that view are not showing themselves as seasoned, wise and wordly types. They're showing themselves as small of brain and mean of spirit. Sorry, but it has to be said.
The truth is it is a bit of both. I don't doubt Rashford believes in the cause, but RocNation who manage him, control his social media, etc are quite open that their business model is to use political activism to drive their clients profile for both change and gain.
They have identified that they can both leverage their clients star power to enable change and that also brands want to align themselves with individuals who are trying to do some good, rather than just are good at their chosen sport.
It's not a "bit of both". I was talking purely about Rashford's primary motivation for getting involved in this stuff. None of what you say here - about how PR works - implies it isn't what he says it is. A genuine concern for kids in circumstances he was once in himself. Of course he's not doing it totally alone. Of course the PR people helping him have a business plan. None of that reasonably casts aspersions on his authenticity as a campaigner.
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.
If making the Union work requires rejoining the EU then obviously that will not be possible but in any case Scotland would not really be voting for full indepedence anyway, just to swap the EU for the UK.
Devomax however might be possible
Not a concern for all English obviously, but any English people who do care about the United Kingdom are advised not to talk about "EU isn't full independence anyway". Scots can if they wish vote for independence and the EU. Disparaging a Scottish lack of commitment to independence is somewhat disrespectful, as well as counterproductive to the continuation of the UK.
Edge cases for Devomax or whatever we want to call it. Can Scotland sign up to Erasmus if England sticks with the apparently inferior Turing scheme? Can Scotland and the EU have official representation?
Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the SNP no less, certainly thinks Scotland rejoining the EU would not be full independence, despite having campaigned for and voted for Scottish independence in 2014
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?
So a wealthy person can't campaign for government to spend more money on something unless they cough up a chunk of their own.
That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.
If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.
I think the term "put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.
Im afraid that if a extremely rich person is campaigning for the Government to spend taxpayers money on some cause then they should donate a decent wedge to that cause.
He has 8 houses, does he need 8 houses? There are numerous poor people in Manchester living in run down over crowded conditions. Why not give away some of these houses?
These celebrity do gooders always prefer it to be someone else's money that is used.
Sorry, voting for a party is now not supporting that party.
Am I drunk
Nope, but perhaps you are seeing this too much from a partisan perspective.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
Co-Op v Tesco as analogy for who you vote for?
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
I actually switched from our Local Mini-Coop to the Mini-Tesco because, whilst previously a customer of the former due to their nicer food, they have been inconsistent in the staff wearing masks for the last year.
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.
Theresa May was the xenophobe, not Boris.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
But you said Farage decided not to stand against the Tories because they'd "rehabilitated".
If you meant rehabilitated away from xenophobia - which it seems you did - why on earth would that cause Farage (who you and I both consider to be a xenophobe) to give them a free pass?
See the logic fail?
You trip yourself up all the time on this one because you aren't telling the truth about it.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
Yeah an Aussie I work with said that the government is under a lot of pressure because it publicly declines to buy any Pfizer vaccine doses preferring the domestic one and cheaper AZ one. The domestic one failed to launch and the Aussie regulator has restricted AZ to over 60s and they still haven't bought any Pfizer or Moderna.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
What is the latest on vaccoine efficacy for AZT/Moderna/Pfizer, etc. I thought they were all looking good for all the current variants but Leon is semihyper-ventilating about Delta so I wonder if there is some news I've missed.
The truth is it is a bit of both. I don't doubt Rashford believes in the cause, but RocNation who manage him, control his social media, etc are quite open that their business model is to use political activism to drive their clients profile for both change and gain.
They have identified that they can both leverage their clients star power to enable change and that also brands want to align themselves with individuals who are trying to do some good, rather than just are good at their chosen sport.
It's not a "bit of both". I was talking purely about Rashford's primary motivation for getting involved in this stuff. None of what you say here - about how PR works - implies it isn't what he says it is. A genuine concern for kids in circumstances he was once in himself. Of course he's not doing it totally alone. Of course the PR people helping him have a business plan. None of that reasonably casts aspersions on his authenticity as a campaigner.
The point is, Rashford thinks the effectiveness of his campaign is in the PR. It's a bit like the "teach a man to fish" thing. He can turn up for his selected charity and spread some celebrity dust or he can use his position to achieve beneficial policy change. He sees the value in the second.
It's interesting to look back over his Twitter feed from when he first got involved in FareShare. You can see he was finding his way and trying to work out his role and eventually made it different from what he and the charity were intending at the start. I have no doubt he is control of his PR
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
I've just been reading about the vaccine situation in Australia. It seems like a complete shambles and they're currently not giving AZ to people under 60 despite having spare domestic production capacity.
Yeah an Aussie I work with said that the government is under a lot of pressure because it publicly declines to buy any Pfizer vaccine doses preferring the domestic one and cheaper AZ one. The domestic one failed to launch and the Aussie regulator has restricted AZ to over 60s and they still haven't bought any Pfizer or Moderna.
Supply is still tight even for those prepared to pay up.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/07/693_312473.html Korea is struggling to secure a sufficient supply of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines as the government decided to replace those with the Pfizer vaccines for employees working in large manufacturing companies such as Samsung, LG and Hyundai Motor.
Company officials said Tuesday that they recently received a notification from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) that the Moderna vaccines for their employees had been replaced with the Pfizer vaccines, different from originally planned arrangements.
In June, the government was planning to offer the Moderna vaccines to people working in the country's core industries, such as the semiconductor, automotive and IT sectors, regardless of their age. The scheme is due to concerns that the loss to the national economy could be enormous if the virus spreads in those key industries.
Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the KDCA, said in a briefing on July 19 that the delivery of the Moderna vaccines from the United States has been delayed due to quality inspection and delivery issues. On Tuesday, the KDCA confirmed that 43 workplaces across the nation which have in-company doctors will receive Pfizer's vaccines starting from July 27....
Comments
Devomax however might be possible
https://
twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1417839542711771140
I simply don't understand why someone would think he should not contribute to political life yet it is fine for Starmer, Johnson or Sturgeon to do so, so was asking the question.
No, wait! That would still get your goat because he himself would benefit from those lower taxes, wouldn't he? So that would be VENAL.
Oh god. Such a toughie. Or maybe not. Maybe it's very simple. Marcus needs to just shut up, basically, if he wants to stay on the right side of you.
6897 positives reported today, down from 10426 a week ago.
The Netherlands third wave is the strangest thing. Sixfold week on week growth for a week, then decline almost as rapidly. Soon it will be as if it never happened.
I don't follow county cricket closely enough to have any opinion on what happened or what he is like now.
dodgeradvocate for tax efficiency. I don't believe he has technically lived in the UK for absolutely ages.Plenty of people down the years have voted for parties they don't support - whether it be because of it being a protest vote, a tactical vote or other.
Nothing original there at all. 🤦♂️
1. If GB implemented the checks and barriers to products coming in as is required - and has been in NI - then we would have had significant shortages. As they have in NI. We haven't because we haven't...
2. The driver shortage is getting worse and will continue to get worse. There aren't enough drivers and there aren't going to be enough until we remove the barriers to EU drivers and vehicles we have imposed.
3. Shortages of drivers - and thus deliveries - are uncontrolled. Any uncontrolled short is as it says on the tin - uncontrolled. That means some deliveries / stores / regions / suppliers will be very short and others delivered in full. And then vice-versa. So "I haven't got any shortages" is not proof of no shortages.
Worth noting that Boris dropped Theresa May/David Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands.
My interpretation was that he felt, poor children should get a nutritious meal each day during the school holidays. Johnson did not agree... initially, and this is where the hostility arose.
If his campaign had been to look after stray dogs during the pandemic, Carrie would have been on board, and all would have been fine.
How do you convince Unionists in Northern Ireland that they haven't been sacrificed so that Johnson could win an election on the basis of getting Brexit done when that's precisely what happened?
If the reverse had happened - Nationalists in Northern Ireland being abandoned by Dublin so a deal could be done - it would be a similarly nightmarish scenario.
TSE, David Herdson etc have been out of the party now for longer than I was. If they were to return to the party post-Boris would you view that as infiltration.
Edge cases for Devomax or whatever we want to call it. Can Scotland sign up to Erasmus if England sticks with the apparently inferior Turing scheme? Can Scotland and the EU have official representation?
You vote for a candidate. I don’t support the Tories but I voted Tory at our local elections simply as the candidate has done a great job as a councillor. I voted Tory then but I’m not a supporter. I vote labour in general elections.
They have identified that they can both leverage their clients star power to enable change and that also brands want to align themselves with individuals who are trying to do some good, rather than just are good at their chosen sport.
Arguably, Peter Rachman hasn't either since 1962. So another poor example.
I am Bradley Wiggins
What is not healthy is if there are no-go areas for scrutiny and criticism ... and this feels like one.
I have voted Conservative, Labour, Independent, and Lib Dem in the last few years. I forget, but I might even have voted Green as well. By your thinking, I was 'supporting' those parties. I was not: I have no loyalty, or even faith particularly, in them. I just tried to pick the best candidate/party for the job - often amidst a sadly restricted choice.
I didn't particularly support the local Co-Op when I went in earlier for some orange juice and a pack of crisps; and I won't feel guilty if I go to Tescos in the next few days.
This is worse.
"Trump’s racist tweets remind Brits of when ‘Go Home’ vans drove through London" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/07/17/trumps-racist-tweets-remind-brits-when-go-home-vans-drove-through-london/
Nigel sees nothing wrong with sending vans around London saying "Go Home". I do. Its evil.
@EssexPR
·
3h
Keir Starmer has an open goal here to defeat the Gov’t, I’ve spoken to two Conservative MPs that will fight it and rumours now of a growing list.
The young would love him for it..
Those that know these things are discriminatory would think better of him..
I fully expect Starmer to dither for weeks and then finally whip his MPs to support Johnson.
Very much hope he surprises me and doesn't do this.
That effectively means rich people must shut up about politics unless they're campaigning for lower tax and spending cuts.
If you can't see what a nonsense that is, I can't help you.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/jim-sillars-i-wont-back-independence-if-scotland-rejoins-eu-1454533
Accepting the situation and making the best of it is best course right now.
* NI Unionists have an interest in Northern Ireland being a success, because nobody apart from them cares about the place. They need enough Northern Ireland catholics and non-aligned to opt for an easy life and the status quo and not push them to think a United Ireland is a better option. This was pretty much the consensus before Brexit. Those people want the Protocol. NI Unionists should respect that. Unfortunately they are in cycle of disastrous from their PoV choices on Brexit, on throwing their lot in with English nationalists and now the Protocol. You can't stop people from self-harm but you can try to dissuade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9809887/Freedom-Day-watered-weeks-SAGE-tells-Boris-prepare-roll-mask-wearing.html
56 Not out from 142 balls from 3hrs at the crease
None of this Liam Livingstone nonsense....
You can't mean that. It implies you have no ideology whatsoever. I know it can be a dirty word - ideology - but the total absence of it leaves a person with no political underpinning. No framework within which to decide what sort of policies they want to see.
BTW you could say that Labour can't please Cambridge and Bootle at the same time, but I think it's more complicated than that.
I'm wondering whether they're experimenting with pre-briefing positive announcements, then not making them, and seeing whether the positive press from the pre-briefing sticks.
If they can get the political credit for a 3% pay rise for the NHS without anyone having to actually pay for it then that would be ideal from their point of view.
Im afraid that if a extremely rich person is campaigning for the Government to spend taxpayers money on some cause then they should donate a decent wedge to that cause.
He has 8 houses, does he need 8 houses? There are numerous poor people in Manchester living in run down over crowded conditions. Why not give away some of these houses?
All we have is an Outrage Bus full of slebs and politicos telling us how horrible the Spectator is, and how much they hate it, based on a projection of their own assumptions.
(Unless they knew more when they said it than I have seen).
Quite happy to be generally skeptical about the tax affairs of footballers, but not to read that general into the particular of Marcus Rashford without evidence, given the industrial scale of tax avoidance / tax evasion that so many have indulged in.
I'm thoroughly enjoying the exhibition of unconscious self-importance from Knee-jerking Nish Kumar and the rest.
Now, on easing restrictions, vaccinations were quite a bit lower than ours, now pretty close (still lagging on second dose, but not by a great deal). So, hopefully we'll do better here, but we'll see.
The rise and fall are both spectacular. The measures introduced are not super-strict, though.[1] So it would be interesting to know whether the fall is the restrictions (even though not that strict), delta hitting wall due to vaccination plus infection (good news for us, if so) or self-lockdown given the pretty shocking explosion of cases (our friends were pretty much staying at home and gave the impression this was common, but that's anecdata).
[1] https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/news/2021/07/09/no-choice-but-to-take-summertime-measures-in-face-of-rapid-increase-in-infections
I try not to be hypocritical and hope my position on taxation is entirely consistent - I would certainly support a campaign for lower taxes and spending cuts and good luck to Marcus Rashford if he also benefits from that.
Analogy as to how we judge politicians?
No, I normally have at least three moods at any one time, at least one of them manically positive
It is very hard to be positive about Delta. It is scary
If you meant rehabilitated away from xenophobia - which it seems you did - why on earth would that cause Farage (who you and I both consider to be a xenophobe) to give them a free pass?
See the logic fail?
You trip yourself up all the time on this one because you aren't telling the truth about it.
It's interesting to look back over his Twitter feed from when he first got involved in FareShare. You can see he was finding his way and trying to work out his role and eventually made it different from what he and the charity were intending at the start. I have no doubt he is control of his PR
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/07/693_312473.html
Korea is struggling to secure a sufficient supply of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines as the government decided to replace those with the Pfizer vaccines for employees working in large manufacturing companies such as Samsung, LG and Hyundai Motor.
Company officials said Tuesday that they recently received a notification from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) that the Moderna vaccines for their employees had been replaced with the Pfizer vaccines, different from originally planned arrangements.
In June, the government was planning to offer the Moderna vaccines to people working in the country's core industries, such as the semiconductor, automotive and IT sectors, regardless of their age. The scheme is due to concerns that the loss to the national economy could be enormous if the virus spreads in those key industries.
Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the KDCA, said in a briefing on July 19 that the delivery of the Moderna vaccines from the United States has been delayed due to quality inspection and delivery issues. On Tuesday, the KDCA confirmed that 43 workplaces across the nation which have in-company doctors will receive Pfizer's vaccines starting from July 27....