Howdy, Stranger!

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

The HGV driver shortage: 2 in 3 blame ministers, Brexit and BoJo – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 26 in General
imageThe HGV driver shortage: 2 in 3 blame ministers, Brexit and BoJo – politicalbetting.com

Interesting polling from Opinium on who/what is to blame for the ongoing situation. Clearly everything is in the context of the pandemic which gets the most blame – but it is not that far ahead of the government, Brexit and Johnson.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 14,808
    edited September 26
    So clearly there was a focus group earlier in the week that revealed the issue.

    Which is why Boris has created a solution that seems to fix all the issues while not solving a single one of them and should allow the blame to be correctly laid back at the feet of the haulage industry (and the customers that pushed profits to the floor).

    I note that these questions don't seem to have the industry as the answer which is a pity as that's 90% of the real issue.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,327
    God Rayner's a useless [insert pejorative of your choice].

    How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?
  • eekeek Posts: 14,808

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Did you read the question - it's not about a lack of fuel at forecourts the question is about a shortage of HGV drivers? And I know people want to answer the question they wish they had been asked rather than the question that was actually asked but even so...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    Angela Rayner claiming that ‘scum’ is ‘jovial, friendly northern slang’ reminds me of Alan Partridge misunderstanding mocking banter and calling a TV executive ‘a shit’


    https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,447
    I note the very unintelligent Rayner whose command of the English language, both in.pronuncistion and undertanding thereof can only get on the news feeds by calling the Tories "scum".
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,041

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,688
    Chameleon said:

    God Rayner's a useless [insert pejorative of your choice].

    How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?

    The party has been completely hollowed out. Labour in the 90s was stuffed full of serious politicians who could have taken over from Blair if he had fallen under the wheels of a bus. I actually don't mind Starmer that much, but it's worrying that he's one of the best on the Labour benches and that those around him are so poor.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,082
    edited September 26
    Leon said:

    Angela Rayner claiming that ‘scum’ is ‘jovial, friendly northern slang’ reminds me of Alan Partridge misunderstanding mocking banter and calling a TV executive ‘a shit’


    https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs

    The C-Word, can be used as jovial, friendly slang, but I don't think scum can

    "Come here you C***" to a mate in the pub works

    "Come here you Scum", I don't think does
  • I see among that myriad of options 'poor pay and conditions' is not included.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,498
    eek said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Did you read the question - it's not about a lack of fuel at forecourts the question is about a shortage of HGV drivers? And I know people want to answer the question they wish they had been asked rather than the question that was actually asked but even so...
    And which issue are 99% thinking about when answering this question? Get real....
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,791
    I'm confused as to why the EU might be to blame but would be happy if someone could enlighten me.

    The shortage of lorry drivers could be a trap for the left/remainers/liberals. Plenty of non- university educated people will be pleased to see lorry drivers able to earn high salaries.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,041
    eek said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Did you read the question - it's not about a lack of fuel at forecourts the question is about a shortage of HGV drivers? And I know people want to answer the question they wish they had been asked rather than the question that was actually asked but even so...
    I can see I also fell into that trap.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    I note the very unintelligent Rayner whose command of the English language, both in.pronuncistion and undertanding thereof can only get on the news feeds by calling the Tories "scum".

    I'm inclined to admire Rayner for achieving a successful career in politics despite not fitting the mould of what might be thought of as the average politician, and I don't even begrudge grandstanding as one way or another politicians will do that, but insulting intelligence with the reporting of her explanation (even if it is just northern slang it was part of what seemed to be a heartfelt condemnation of the government) is just plain strange more than anything else.
    kjh said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
    That probably just shows a base level Tory tribal vote, picking the most favourable option whether they believe it or not.
  • I see among that myriad of options 'poor pay and conditions' is not included.

    And even if it was I wonder how willing people would be to pay more to fund better pay and conditions.

    See the complete flop of the 'clap for a nurses pay rise' campaign this year as an example.

    Though in the case of fuel tanker drivers their pay must be a microscopic element in the overall price.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 44,967
    edited September 26
    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,117
    FPT
    DavidL said:

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.

    She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.

    Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.

    Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.

    You will never see them from the Tories either David, two cheeks of the same morally superior arse. Unfortunate that the SNP have decided to model themselves on this flawed model nowadays as well. The scum truly has risen to the top.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,693

    I see among that myriad of options 'poor pay and conditions' is not included.

    And even if it was I wonder how willing people would be to pay more to fund better pay and conditions.

    See the complete flop of the 'clap for a nurses pay rise' campaign this year as an example.

    Though in the case of fuel tanker drivers their pay must be a microscopic element in the overall price.
    The issue with pay and conditions is that most of the rest of the costs are fixed and monitored. Screwing the drivers over is the flexible bit.....
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    I wonder how many of these stories the government will face this week

    To everyone that panicked and went to fuel their cars when it wasn’t needed, well done👍🏻 on shift on an emergency ambulance, low on fuel and struggling to find somewhere that isn’t sold out😡 https://twitter.com/beckylouh11/status/1441393455406751744/photo/1

    Colleague has no #petrol to get to work tomorrow

    (Senior partner in GP surgery where we see patients face to face & she’s doing flu clinic & has a whole nursing home to look after).

    What say you @grantshapps ?

    Is petrol for critical workers protected?

    #PetrolShortages

    https://twitter.com/Dr_Ellie/status/1442075789114159106
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,185
    No option for haulage companies, paying peanuts and treating drivers as worse than human?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,117
    Chameleon said:

    God Rayner's a useless [insert pejorative of your choice].

    How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?

    They mirror the Tories
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    I'd be useless on this sort of question, I'd just hit 'don't know' for each option if it was available.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,498
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Angela Rayner claiming that ‘scum’ is ‘jovial, friendly northern slang’ reminds me of Alan Partridge misunderstanding mocking banter and calling a TV executive ‘a shit’


    https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs

    The C-Word, can be used as jovial, friendly slang, but I don't think scum can

    "Come here you C***" to a mate in the pub works

    "Come here you Scum", I don't think does
    Perhaps we should retort with Labour Lice - parasites surviving by sucking the blood out of the poor.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,489
    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20
  • Chameleon said:

    God Rayner's a useless [insert pejorative of your choice].

    How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?

    They have a governing party upon which to model themselves..
  • kjh said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
    It was under the last Labour government when the 'get some cheap foreigners to keep the wages down' mentality set in.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,808

    eek said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Did you read the question - it's not about a lack of fuel at forecourts the question is about a shortage of HGV drivers? And I know people want to answer the question they wish they had been asked rather than the question that was actually asked but even so...
    And which issue are 99% thinking about when answering this question? Get real....
    Look at the timing of the survey?

    On Friday the issue wasn't lack of fuel in petrol stations, it was shortage of HGV drivers.

    Only from about 1pm yesterday would be people be thinking about fuel shortages.

    Either way the question misses out the biggest reasons for the mess which does make me wonder about the survey...

    That question is like asking who is to blame for Facebook abusing the information that have collected on you.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,082
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how many of these stories the government will face this week

    To everyone that panicked and went to fuel their cars when it wasn’t needed, well done👍🏻 on shift on an emergency ambulance, low on fuel and struggling to find somewhere that isn’t sold out😡 https://twitter.com/beckylouh11/status/1441393455406751744/photo/1

    Colleague has no #petrol to get to work tomorrow

    (Senior partner in GP surgery where we see patients face to face & she’s doing flu clinic & has a whole nursing home to look after).

    What say you @grantshapps ?

    Is petrol for critical workers protected?

    #PetrolShortages

    https://twitter.com/Dr_Ellie/status/1442075789114159106

    About half a dozen?

    and I reckon you'll post all of of them on here at least once!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    Conservative MP says crisis over trucker shortages and fuel panic buying is reminiscent of the winter of discontent @davidmorrisml #bbcpolnw @BBCNWT https://twitter.com/annabelvtiffin/status/1442065512461062149/video/1
  • glw said:

    Chameleon said:

    God Rayner's a useless [insert pejorative of your choice].

    How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?

    The party has been completely hollowed out. Labour in the 90s was stuffed full of serious politicians who could have taken over from Blair if he had fallen under the wheels of a bus. I actually don't mind Starmer that much, but it's worrying that he's one of the best on the Labour benches and that those around him are so poor.
    ...and he's not actually in charge, as demonstrated yesterday.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,117
    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder how many of these stories the government will face this week

    To everyone that panicked and went to fuel their cars when it wasn’t needed, well done👍🏻 on shift on an emergency ambulance, low on fuel and struggling to find somewhere that isn’t sold out😡 https://twitter.com/beckylouh11/status/1441393455406751744/photo/1

    Colleague has no #petrol to get to work tomorrow

    (Senior partner in GP surgery where we see patients face to face & she’s doing flu clinic & has a whole nursing home to look after).

    What say you @grantshapps ?

    Is petrol for critical workers protected?

    #PetrolShortages

    https://twitter.com/Dr_Ellie/status/1442075789114159106

    Have to say if you are driving an emergency ambulance the last thing you should be doing in running about in an almost empty one. They should be filled up at end of shifts once they get to quarter a tank minimum.
    Same for anyone who absolutely depends on their car, idiot that does not make sure they get that low.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Conservative MP says crisis over trucker shortages and fuel panic buying is reminiscent of the winter of discontent @davidmorrisml #bbcpolnw @BBCNWT https://twitter.com/annabelvtiffin/status/1442065512461062149/video/1

    Well in 1979 Labour opposed pay rises for the working class and in 2021 Labour oppose pay rises for the working class.
  • Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Unless you think they're all lifelong non Tory voters, good luck with 'you're selfish twats and this is your fault' approach on the doorstep.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,648
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    DavidL said:

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.

    She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.

    Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.

    Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.

    You will never see them from the Tories either David, two cheeks of the same morally superior arse. Unfortunate that the SNP have decided to model themselves on this flawed model nowadays as well. The scum truly has risen to the top.

    The Tories make mistakes and misjudgements as do all governments of all stripes but they do not suffer from the sanctimony we see from Labour and some (not all) in the SNP.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,165

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    There it is. There are lots of reasonable moderate people who may have voted CON in the past, may be fed up and may be thinking about moving to LAB.

    Then they see how people like Rayner conduct themselves and quite reasonably conclude 'No thanks'.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    DavidL said:

    If you look at his policies during the pandemic in terms of furlough, the additional UC, the grants, the bounce back loans, etc, he has been extraordinarily centrist in his approach, bordering on leftish. If you look at his approach to climate change and the work that is now being put into COP26 I think that is genuinely admirable. If you look at his willingness to increase taxes, despite the views of many of his natural supporters, when the State needs to do more and needs more resource he is again bordering on what we have traditionally called left wing.

    But that wasn't the question.

    He has no morals.
  • Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
    The Bench of Bishops is (probably) morally superior to the Labour Party, but there are good reasons why we don't let them run the country.
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
    But you think this because you are obsessed by Brexit to an unhealthy degree Scott.

    If you look at his policies during the pandemic in terms of furlough, the additional UC, the grants, the bounce back loans, etc, he has been extraordinarily centrist in his approach, bordering on leftish. If you look at his approach to climate change and the work that is now being put into COP26 I think that is genuinely admirable. If you look at his willingness to increase taxes, despite the views of many of his natural supporters, when the State needs to do more and needs more resource he is again bordering on what we have traditionally called left wing.

    I personally have no problems with any of this. I can see that it upsets many natural Tory supporters such as @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB but I think he is governing from the dead centre of public opinion on all these matters.
    Your first sentence is very succinct
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,439
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
    How does Johnson being incompetent over fuel make Labour morally superior?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,675
    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,474

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Angela Rayner claiming that ‘scum’ is ‘jovial, friendly northern slang’ reminds me of Alan Partridge misunderstanding mocking banter and calling a TV executive ‘a shit’


    https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs

    The C-Word, can be used as jovial, friendly slang, but I don't think scum can

    "Come here you C***" to a mate in the pub works

    "Come here you Scum", I don't think does
    Perhaps we should retort with Labour Lice - parasites surviving by sucking the blood out of the poor.....
    Leeches.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,963

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    If Rayner became Labour leader not only would they fail to win back the RedWall from the Tories, Labour might even lose Hampstead and Cambridge to the LDs
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Angela Rayner claiming that ‘scum’ is ‘jovial, friendly northern slang’ reminds me of Alan Partridge misunderstanding mocking banter and calling a TV executive ‘a shit’


    https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs

    The C-Word, can be used as jovial, friendly slang, but I don't think scum can

    "Come here you C***" to a mate in the pub works

    "Come here you Scum", I don't think does
    Indeed. A lot of insults can be inverted with a friend, and turned into banter. The strength of the insult actually proves the solidity of the friendship.

    I could call a very close male friend a ‘bastard’, ‘a daft c***’, a ‘mad motherfucker’ and it would all be fine. They’d say it back. No worries

    Yet some words remain taboo. I couldn’t - and wouldn’t - use the c word of or with a female friend.

    I wouldn’t call any friend ‘a shit’. It’s just an insult. Which is why it was a brilliant choice for Alan Partridge

    Scum is like shit, as it were (and my apologies to anyone reading that unpleasant sentence of a Sunday morning). It’s a slightly unusual word to use to a fellow human being, it is definitely insulting, hard to see as bantering, and Rayner has made it all worse by saying it is amiable slang where she comes from, thus patronising her fellow working class northerners en masse

    The Labour Party is not fit for purpose. Disband it and start again
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,439

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Hilariously wrong. If Rayner is so threateningly good why is she immediately and embarrassingly walking back her remarks by claiming ‘scum’ is ‘normal working class slang used between friends’?

    It’s pitifully bad politics. From her
  • Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Not in my wife's eyes
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,648
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    If you look at his policies during the pandemic in terms of furlough, the additional UC, the grants, the bounce back loans, etc, he has been extraordinarily centrist in his approach, bordering on leftish. If you look at his approach to climate change and the work that is now being put into COP26 I think that is genuinely admirable. If you look at his willingness to increase taxes, despite the views of many of his natural supporters, when the State needs to do more and needs more resource he is again bordering on what we have traditionally called left wing.

    But that wasn't the question.

    He has no morals.
    In a politician I regard morals as a nice to have, not an essential. Lloyd George allegedly had few too but was a brilliant war leader. I want people who are smart enough to work out what the country needs, what is possible and what can be sold so that it works. Boris is bordering on a genius in this respect, certainly the outstanding politician of a pretty ordinary generation.
  • Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,498
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Did you read the question - it's not about a lack of fuel at forecourts the question is about a shortage of HGV drivers? And I know people want to answer the question they wish they had been asked rather than the question that was actually asked but even so...
    And which issue are 99% thinking about when answering this question? Get real....
    Look at the timing of the survey?

    On Friday the issue wasn't lack of fuel in petrol stations, it was shortage of HGV drivers.

    Only from about 1pm yesterday would be people be thinking about fuel shortages.

    Either way the question misses out the biggest reasons for the mess which does make me wonder about the survey...

    That question is like asking who is to blame for Facebook abusing the information that have collected on you.
    On Friday, it was PRECISELY lack of petrol. Look at the papers on Friday morning - "RUNNING ON EMPTY" - as highlighted by OGH's thread that morning.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,614

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    This is politics 101. You have to acknowledge that the voters trusted the government at the last election to do Good Things. And then you construct the argument that the voters' trust has been betrayed. The final step is to make the case that voters can trust the opposition to do Good Things.

    It doesn't work if your argument is along the lines of, "if you wanted Good Things you shouldn't have voted for scum you stupid twits."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,963
    edited September 26

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Rayner gives Boris a real chance of a 100 majority landslide.

    Not only would she fail to win back a single RedWall seat from the Tories and probably lose a few more to the Tories too, she would also lose some upper middle class Labour Remain seats like Hampstead and Kilburn to the LDs
  • isamisam Posts: 38,082

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Jess Phillips is as mouthy, but more polished (being a middle class Grammar School girl rather than working class like Rayner)

    Repeating myself obviously, but JP mixes the coarseness of a Corbynite with the acceptability of a Blairite better than anyone else in Labour to me
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,602
    The government has a problem, the only question is how big it is. Given the track record of this administration you can't blame people for taking precautions.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,568
    edited September 26
    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    C'mon, obviously a number of PB Tories were just on the brink of turning Red (once they'd stopped moaning about how shit SKS is), this is a disaster for Labour!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    edited September 26
    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.

    As many an election has shown it is possible Party A will attack someone from Party B because they think that person is a threat to them. But quite often they attack them because they think they deserve to be attacked and that's that.

    Personally I think Rayner has something about her that could work very well for Labour, and her 'scum' stuff is just showboating and not hugely consequential, but I don't know why the 'they are worried' trope survives - do we not remember it being used for Corbyn? No doubt Hague and IDS fans used to pull it out.
  • HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Rayner gives Boris a real chance of a 100 majority landslide.

    Not only would she fail to win back a single RedWall seat from the Tories and probably lose a few more to the Tories too, she would also lose some upper middle class Labour Remain seats like Hampstead and Kilburn to the LDs
    But that's not how Labour members would see it. They've tried softly-softly and they've tried barnstorming. The latter is more appealing to them, even as it repels everyone else.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    If you look at his policies during the pandemic in terms of furlough, the additional UC, the grants, the bounce back loans, etc, he has been extraordinarily centrist in his approach, bordering on leftish. If you look at his approach to climate change and the work that is now being put into COP26 I think that is genuinely admirable. If you look at his willingness to increase taxes, despite the views of many of his natural supporters, when the State needs to do more and needs more resource he is again bordering on what we have traditionally called left wing.

    But that wasn't the question.

    He has no morals.
    In a politician I regard morals as a nice to have, not an essential. Lloyd George allegedly had few too but was a brilliant war leader. I want people who are smart enough to work out what the country needs, what is possible and what can be sold so that it works. Boris is bordering on a genius in this respect, certainly the outstanding politician of a pretty ordinary generation.
    I'm not so sure about your last sentence (not that he is not a major figure, I'm just don't think he has all three of the things you list), but certainly I can forgive morality in a decent leader. Personal morals at any rate - I am strict on political and professional probity.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,117
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    DavidL said:

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.

    She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.

    Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.

    Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.

    You will never see them from the Tories either David, two cheeks of the same morally superior arse. Unfortunate that the SNP have decided to model themselves on this flawed model nowadays as well. The scum truly has risen to the top.

    The Tories make mistakes and misjudgements as do all governments of all stripes but they do not suffer from the sanctimony we see from Labour and some (not all) in the SNP.
    David, you have to be kidding now. Really the assorted bad un's in the Tories would all be chanting "let them eat cake", just look at the bunch of ne'er do wells in the sub regional Scottish group, is there any one of them that has an ounce of the milk of human kindness.
  • kle4 said:

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
    Not only that, but there is also the timing. Despite it being conference, today is a good time to keep quiet and let the government look stupid over the petrol shortages. Instead they can deflect it onto the use of the word scum instead. Don't interrupt your opponents when they are making a mistake.
  • HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Rayner gives Boris a real chance of a 100 majority landslide.

    Not only would she fail to win back a single RedWall seat from the Tories and probably lose a few more to the Tories too, she would also lose some upper middle class Labour Remain seats like Hampstead and Kilburn to the LDs
    I would not go that far but it feels rather like Rayner's Ratner moment
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,004
    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    What a load of pretentious bollocks. Thanks for giving me a chuckle.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,117
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Hilariously wrong. If Rayner is so threateningly good why is she immediately and embarrassingly walking back her remarks by claiming ‘scum’ is ‘normal working class slang used between friends’?

    It’s pitifully bad politics. From her
    Yes, big mistake
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,004

    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    C'mon, obviously a number of PB Tories were just on the brink of turning Red (once they'd stopped moaning about how shit SKS is), this is a disaster for Labour!
    I think it will repel many more than it attracts. It may appeal to diehards on twitter but many red wall voters are Tory. She’s telling the people,she needs to win back they are scum. Not the smartest move.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,124
    kle4 said:

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
    If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:

    they never criticise the voters

    and

    the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.



  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,568
    edited September 26
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.

    As many an election has shown it is possible Party A will attack someone from Party B because they think that person is a threat to them. But quite often they attack them because they think they deserve to be attacked and that's that.

    Personally I think Rayner has something about her that could work very well for Labour, and her 'scum' stuff is just showboating and not hugely consequential, but I don't know why the 'they are worried' trope survives - do we not remember it being used for Corbyn? No doubt it Hague and IDS fans used to pull it out.
    I think they've leapt on this gratefully as distraction from their own self-created shitshow rather than from any particular fear of Rayner. Probably wiser not to have provided them with that comforting distraction, but I think #runinngonempty will outlast #Toryscum by a handy number of days.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,394
    edited September 26

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.

    It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.

    But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.

    So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.

    And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    On reflection, I think Rayner’s problem is that she really is fueled by class-hatred. And given her tough, tough background, that’s very understandable - I have working class friends who, in their cups, would use the same language about Etonians in power. Also, this class-hatred has driven her a long way. From 16 year old single Mum to Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Impressive

    The trouble is, only about 20% of the country (at most) shares this loathing. Most Brits don’t differentiate by class to anything like the same degree. They look at the Tories and see greedy liars, but they look at Labour and see greedy liars who preach.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,439

    kle4 said:

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
    Not only that, but there is also the timing. Despite it being conference, today is a good time to keep quiet and let the government look stupid over the petrol shortages. Instead they can deflect it onto the use of the word scum instead. Don't interrupt your opponents when they are making a mistake.
    True. Didn't this also happen a few weeks ago? The government made a blunder but everyone was talking about Labour instead. Can't remember exactly what it was about.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,983

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Quite like that.

    They don't need balls; they need a prick.

    Hmmmm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    I see the BBC have helpfully listed the various coalition options in Germany

    Traffic Light
    Jamaica
    Kenya
    Germany
    Red Red Green

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58690645
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,004
    Leon said:

    On reflection, I think Rayner’s problem is that she really is fueled by class-hatred. And given her tough, tough background, that’s very understandable - I have working class friends who, in their cups, would use the same language about Etonians in power. Also, this class-hatred has driven her a long way. From 16 year old single Mum to Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Impressive

    The trouble is, only about 20% of the country (at most) shares this loathing. Most Brits don’t differentiate by class to anything like the same degree. They look at the Tories and see greedy liars, but they look at Labour and see greedy liars who preach.

    Mate, stick to,dolphins.

    Rayner May be driven by a class hatred but many working class people, certainly those I know, aren’t. They just want a better life and better life chances. Calling Tories scum is school playground stuff.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,675

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    You don't bring piss to a shit fight. SKS is watery piss.

    Rayner is campaigning to be leader of the Labour party not PM. Once she's unseated Max Fuckroom she can pivot to more weighty matters such as pretending to give a fuck at a the Cenotaph, etc. with Kate Middleton grade fake sincerity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It is telling how the pb.com tories are straining their age withered sinews to slag off the Flame Haired Chatelaine of Stockport. If she were a complete fucking nothing they wouldn't bother but with her distinctive hair and iconoclastic tendencies she could be Labour's Johnson.

    Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.

    As many an election has shown it is possible Party A will attack someone from Party B because they think that person is a threat to them. But quite often they attack them because they think they deserve to be attacked and that's that.

    Personally I think Rayner has something about her that could work very well for Labour, and her 'scum' stuff is just showboating and not hugely consequential, but I don't know why the 'they are worried' trope survives - do we not remember it being used for Corbyn? No doubt it Hague and IDS fans used to pull it out.
    I think they've leapt on this gratefully as distraction from their own self-created shitshow rather than from any particular fear of Rayner. Probably wiser not to have provided them with a comforting distraction, but I think #runinngonempty will outlast #Toryscum by a handy number of days.
    Probably.

    That it allows an easy distraction is why I find stunts about saying unparliamentary things in the Commons so irritating. Here it may have been a tactical error, who knows (it is conference week, it surely makes her look good there), and it's only the phoney roll back that I find inexplicable.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,447
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
    Zzzzzzzzs
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,185
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
    If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:

    they never criticise the voters

    and

    the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
    The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.

    Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.

    Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,082
    edited September 26
    ...
    kinabalu said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.

    It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.

    But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.

    So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.

    And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
    The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553
    Next few polls will be interesting. London currently has no petrol. The ultimate reason is Johnson’s Brexit deal. If this doesn’t cut through nothing will.

    Having said that, I think the beneficiaries will be the LDs. Labour are so useless at the moment, they’re incapable of taking advantage.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,983
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    Yes but religion is not by descent and clearly the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in many ways. I am not denying that Mohammad sourced Abrahamic scriptures on which he claimed further revelations.

    I am simply saying that to pretend that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God is wrong, and believed so by the vast majority of believers on both sides throughout history.

    Now, I am very happy to work with other religions, or indeed other Christian sects, on common objectives, that doesn't mean that we believe in the same God. Incidentally, Jesus Himself did not require belief in the same God, for example the Centurion, who would be required to be a Roman Pagan.
    Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham. That is why they are the Abrahamic religions. Islam may have Muhammed as its principal prophet, Christianity has Christ as its Messiah and Judaism only believes in the Old Testament not the New. That is what makes them distinctive but they all believe in 1 God, the God of Abraham and that makes them collectively distinctive from say Hinduism too.
    I like to focus on relationships to, and understandings of, the same God. In a slight caricature...

    For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.

    Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.

    I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.

    And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    edited September 26
    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    As I noted on the previous thread sometimes I think you remind people of such things like that because you want to face a furious reaction.

    I don't think the point needs to be belaboured, so I'll just content myself by saying I don't see how having a baby, unmarried or not, confers immorality on someone, and certainly does not confer disadvantages on their governing ability. Calling a pregnant teenager scum says more about the person saying it than the teenager.

    My mum gave birth at 18 but you'll be glad to know she did get married before then.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,568
    edited September 26
    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    Lol, I salute your indefatigable consistency!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    You don't bring piss to a shit fight. SKS is watery piss.

    Rayner is campaigning to be leader of the Labour party not PM. Once she's unseated Max Fuckroom she can pivot to more weighty matters such as pretending to give a fuck at a the Cenotaph, etc. with Kate Middleton grade fake sincerity.
    Jess Philips is the best bet for Labour.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,235

    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    Lol, I salute you're indefatigable consistency!
    I think you caught the Brexiteer apostrophe from Big_G ;)
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,447
    edited September 26
    Leon said:

    On reflection, I think Rayner’s problem is that she really is fueled by class-hatred. And given her tough, tough background, that’s very understandable - I have working class friends who, in their cups, would use the same language about Etonians in power. Also, this class-hatred has driven her a long way. From 16 year old single Mum to Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Impressive

    The trouble is, only about 20% of the country (at most) shares this loathing. Most Brits don’t differentiate by class to anything like the same degree. They look at the Tories and see greedy liars, but they look at Labour and see greedy liars who preach.

    ALL polititicians are duplicitous but voters don't want Labours kind of lies. They look at people like Rayner and think....is that all Labour have got ... and vote Tory.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,041

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT

    The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.

    As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.

    Until BoZo.

    Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
    Zzzzzzzzs
    Seems like a perfectly valid comment, whether you agree with it or not so why the zzzzs
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20

    That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.

    But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).

    It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.

    The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
    If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:

    they never criticise the voters

    and

    the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
    The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.

    Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.

    Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
    Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,614
    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,528
    I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
  • RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    Lol, I salute you're indefatigable consistency!
    I think you caught the Brexiteer apostrophe from Big_G ;)
    I have no idea what your referring to!

    (I put the 'your' in for laffs)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,235

    I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.

    We both know that's not how this works. Any comment made at any event is fair game, as many politicians know.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,498

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    Rayner gives Boris a real chance of a 100 majority landslide.

    Not only would she fail to win back a single RedWall seat from the Tories and probably lose a few more to the Tories too, she would also lose some upper middle class Labour Remain seats like Hampstead and Kilburn to the LDs
    I would not go that far but it feels rather like Rayner's Ratner moment
    Raynerised the Labour brand.

    Not that it was worth a prawn sandwich before, mind.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,235
    edited September 26

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.

    Lol, I salute you're indefatigable consistency!
    I think you caught the Brexiteer apostrophe from Big_G ;)
    I have no idea what your referring to!

    (I put the 'your' in for laffs)
    Just teasing. I make that mistake far too often. :)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,675
    MaxPB said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I asked my wife to listen to the Rayner interview

    She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she

    I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not

    Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her

    I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population

    The big winner from Rayner's remarks yesterday is probably Wes Streeting. One less serious rival for the leadership.
    Wishful thinking, I fear. @Dura_Ace has nailed it. Labour need a "Johnson" to counter Johnson and Rayner is their best bet.
    You don't bring piss to a shit fight. SKS is watery piss.

    Rayner is campaigning to be leader of the Labour party not PM. Once she's unseated Max Fuckroom she can pivot to more weighty matters such as pretending to give a fuck at a the Cenotaph, etc. with Kate Middleton grade fake sincerity.
    Jess Philips is the best bet for Labour.
    She once liked one of my more vituperative tweets so I'd say that brings her sense of restraint into question.
  • TresTres Posts: 574

    Next few polls will be interesting. London currently has no petrol. The ultimate reason is Johnson’s Brexit deal. If this doesn’t cut through nothing will.

    Having said that, I think the beneficiaries will be the LDs. Labour are so useless at the moment, they’re incapable of taking advantage.

    At times this these I reflect how fortunate we have been to avoid all that chaos with Ed Miliband. Phew.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,225

    Plenty of blame to go round.

    Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....

    Perhaps not the best line for ministers to push.
Sign In or Register to comment.