"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
I sense Farage polishing his electoral brogues, as the Guardian quietly avoids the story
Are you actually using a murder story to troll a newspaper? It's at the top of the Guardian website. Fair enough that the Guardian deserves to get trolled as often as possible, but using this is a little... hmmm
A while back some people were laughing at the idea of use OneWeb satellites for navigation purposes.
What is in treating about the following is that it is totally non-cooperative. The researchers simply used the signals from the SpaceX constellation, without assistance from SpaceX.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
Yes, the idea that French autoroute service stations are a bastion of good food and coffee is badly damaged by, say, an actual visit to a French autoroute service station
There are exceptions, but you generally get a coffee machine like in W H Smiths at Heston on the M4, and a tired selection of baguettes with thin cheese and ham, or a listlessly made cafe au lait. You don't even get the outlets of M&S and Waitrose or Pret where you might get an interesting sandwich
I suspect Robert's memories of French autoroutes are deeply coloured by holiday journeys as a boy when you pulled over into the Relais Routier and you got confit de canard and a carafe of red wine for 2 quid and it was all home made and fresh, and, alas, largely gone now
Part of the problem is, food without wine is so uninteresting you might as well have it administered via suppository.
I think you're approaching this issue from the wrong end.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
Does anyone actually go to the cinema and not have popcorn?
Having popcorn at the cinema is like having a pint at the pub. Its all part of the experience.
There are some decent hot dog "diner" restaurants about, but popcorn is perfectly designed for the cinema. Can nibble on it over a couple of hours while watching the movie, without making any noise to disturb anyone else.
Tribune rally opened by @zarahsultana: “Want to open this rally with solidarity for our comrade Andy McDonald.” (Cue enormous applause). Says the current Labour leadership is “shameful.” Attacks the “Blairites.” #Lab21
Sultana attacks the “Blairite clique” which she says is dominating the leadership, “gathering in drinks receptions with Peter Mandelson” [boos] “reliving the 1980s and 1990s.”
More cheers when Sultana says “it’s an absolute disgrace that the leadership have let a scum newspaper have a stand at conference this year.”
What an idiot, if the Labour leadership was dominated by a "Blairite clique" then Labour would be ahead in the polls and idiots like Sultana would have been booted out ages ago.
Reliving the 1990s?
Yes. When Labour last defeated the Tories and won power after a long long period in opposition.
Imagine a Liverpool fan who didn't like Kenny Dalglish, or a United fan who hated Ferguson, it's not easy is it? The very idea is fantastical. There is something deeply wrong with the Labour Party when so many members revile their most successful leader ever.
The Labour Party hate Blair because of Iraq, which to be fair I don't think is that unreasonable.
Tories also used to hate Blair because he fooled them into being the most enthusiastic supporters of Iraq, but they've moved on. He's now handy for beating SKS up for being crap by comparison, and Labour lefties for repudiating his electoral success.
I voted for Blair twice
I voted for him and don't regret it. He was the best person for the job at the time.
That’s your defence is? Easily proved wrong. Iraq War. Dodgy dossier, death of a scientist. didn’t fix roof when sun shining sub prime mortgage crash. The ground work for Brexit. saddling country with long term debt from from insane £160 to change a lightbulb PPP Contracts. No fight back against globalisation murdering Communities in fact praised globalisation.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
The seven energy suppliers wot went bust recently is going to mean an extra £30 added onto everyone’s bills from next April.
And that’s just 7 companies, 1.5m customers. Talk of 40 or more going under. By my calculations, next years energy bills could end up being on average, £150-200 more as a result of this mess.
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
"Winning" by walking out in a strop and handing even more control of the party to Starmer?
The Labour Left are winning this week in the same way as Macron won with respect to AUKUS.
The seven energy suppliers wot went bust recently is going to mean an extra £30 added onto everyone’s bills from next April.
And that’s just 7 companies, 1.5m customers. Talk of 40 or more going under. By my calculations, next years energy bills could end up being on average, £150-200 more as a result of this mess.
The triumph of market competition! Higher prices for all ☹️
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
It’s said that Corbyn was so toxic he drove voters away from voting Lib Dem because they were scared of letting him in No 10
But in his bad election, in 2019, Labour got more votes than his predecessor Ed Miliband managed in 2015, and the Lib Dem’s got more as well.
He got more than Brown in 2010 as well. And his good GE was only bettered by Blair in 97 & 01
It went so bad for him because the Tories got all the 2015 UKIP vote, that were split in 2017 because Labour weren’t trying to get a second referendum then
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
It’s said that Corbyn was so toxic he drove voters away from voting Lib Dem because they were scared of letting him in No 10
But in his bad election, in 2019, Labour got more votes than his predecessor Ed Miliband managed in 2015, and the Lib Dem’s got more as well.
He got more than Brown in 2010 as well. And his good GE was only bettered but Blair in 97 & 01
Although given a rising population, it's not surprising that each election sees parties get record numbers of votes.
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
Proof that the voters will not trust this Labour party with a majority. If Starmer becomes PM he will likely need LD support to dilute the left of the Labour Party (as well as the SNP of course).
In much the same way Cameron could only govern with the LDs in 2010 as voters ensured he would not be hostage to the party right on his backbenches who they were still wary of then
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
Yes, the idea that French autoroute service stations are a bastion of good food and coffee is badly damaged by, say, an actual visit to a French autoroute service station
There are exceptions, but you generally get a coffee machine like in W H Smiths at Heston on the M4, and a tired selection of baguettes with thin cheese and ham, or a listlessly made cafe au lait. You don't even get the outlets of M&S and Waitrose or Pret where you might get an interesting sandwich
I suspect Robert's memories of French autoroutes are deeply coloured by holiday journeys as a boy when you pulled over into the Relais Routier and you got confit de canard and a carafe of red wine for 2 quid and it was all home made and fresh, and, alas, largely gone now
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
I think the current multiplex cinema model is in dreadful trouble. Feels like Woolworths c.2007 to me.
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
Does anyone actually go to the cinema and not have popcorn?
Having popcorn at the cinema is like having a pint at the pub. Its all part of the experience.
There are some decent hot dog "diner" restaurants about, but popcorn is perfectly designed for the cinema. Can nibble on it over a couple of hours while watching the movie, without making any noise to disturb anyone else.
I don't. Occasionally have had some of the bagged toffee popcorn, but that's like 1 in 10 times. Not really a fan of it, especially when there's so much of it even on the small.
It used to actually cost more to have a smaller drink for some reason, part of meal deal probably, so in the end they finally agreed to charge me for the larger one even as I had a small (still large) one.
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
It’s said that Corbyn was so toxic he drove voters away from voting Lib Dem because they were scared of letting him in No 10
But in his bad election, in 2019, Labour got more votes than his predecessor Ed Miliband managed in 2015, and the Lib Dem’s got more as well.
He got more than Brown in 2010 as well. And his good GE was only bettered but Blair in 97 & 01
Although given a rising population, it's not surprising that each election sees parties get record numbers of votes.
2019 Corbyn got better vote shares than Brown & Miliband too, and 2019 LD got 4% more than 2015
Why on earth do Labour MPs use the terms “comrades” and “solidarity”. Bizarrely soviet
I can't quite put my finger on it, but sometimes, when it's done with a certain ironic charm, I don't mind it. But for those who seem to reallllly take the term seriously I find it offputting.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi may not be perfect but he is a crucial ally for the west in containing Islamic extremism and Xi's China
Why on earth do Labour MPs use the terms “comrades” and “solidarity”. Bizarrely soviet
I can't quite put my finger on it, but sometimes, when it's done with a certain ironic charm, I don't mind it. But for those who seem to reallllly take the term seriously I find it offputting.
Why on earth do Labour MPs use the terms “comrades” and “solidarity”. Bizarrely soviet
I can't quite put my finger on it, but sometimes, when it's done with a certain ironic charm, I don't mind it. But for those who seem to reallllly take the term seriously I find it offputting.
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
I think the current multiplex cinema model is in dreadful trouble. Feels like Woolworths c.2007 to me.
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
Curzon cinemas already do that and show more highbrow independent films as well
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
I can do rants. As you probably know. That was not a "rant"
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
I think the current multiplex cinema model is in dreadful trouble. Feels like Woolworths c.2007 to me.
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
Agreed. The small city screens like at the Barbican are always much nicer. Too late now though because... Netflix etc.
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
I think the current multiplex cinema model is in dreadful trouble. Feels like Woolworths c.2007 to me.
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
Curzon cinemas already do that and show more highbrow independent films as well
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
Big memberships are impressive and presumably also bring in a fair amount of money. Our expert in 1950s politics would be best placed to comment if memberships are just much more demanding now than they used to be. It's not unreasonable for members to want to be involved, but activists are deeply weird people (in both good and bad ways) for being activists at all, and a lot of them think the party should focus on pleasing them, not focus on winning.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
I can do rants. As you probably know. That was not a "rant"
To be fair, you've got me there. I know your rants, I've been subjected to them; that was no rant.
I was trying to find another word in place of rant but fuck it - I'm not a writer.
Edit: 'railing' Right-winger railing against the Guardian. That any better?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi may not be perfect but he is a crucial ally for the west in containing Islamic extremism and Xi's China
More like a massive recruiting agent for Islamic extremists.
You may as well say "Putin and Xi aren't perfect but they are crucial in containing Islamic extremism".
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
Proof that the voters will not trust this Labour party with a majority. If Starmer becomes PM he will likely need LD support to dilute the left of the Labour Party (as well as the SNP of course).
In much the same way Cameron could only govern with the LDs in 2010 as voters ensured he would not be hostage to the party right on his backbenches who they were still wary of then
Voters colluded amongst themselves to engineer 2010? Really? Cameron put on a hundred seats. Only fell short because his campaign was so crap.
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi is nowhere near as bad as Trump, don't be a silly sausage.
I highly doubt that Modi pressured or ordered anyone to fake the vaccination dates. Instead what normally happens with this kind of thing is that people are pressured/incentivised to do well on a particular date which then leads to people down the chain fudging stuff they're responsible for in order to look impressive to their superiors.
Happens all the time. Another example was Ethiopia planting over 300million trees "in 12 hoours". After it was claimed, lots of reports came out saying that the trees being recorded in one day had actually been planted over many days but been recorded on one date. Just like this. China did something similar recently too from memory.
If Trump encouraged people to get vaccinated for his birthday that'd actually make me begrudgingly respect him a bit. But he'd never do that.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi is nowhere near as bad as Trump, don't be a silly sausage.
I highly doubt that Modi pressured or ordered anyone to fake the vaccination dates. Instead what normally happens with this kind of thing is that people are pressured/incentivised to do well on a particular date which then leads to people down the chain fudging stuff they're responsible for in order to look impressive to their superiors.
Happens all the time. Another example was Ethiopia planting over 300million trees "in 12 hoours". After it was claimed, lots of reports came out saying that the trees being recorded in one day had actually been planted over many days but been recorded on one date. Just like this. China did something similar recently too from memory.
If Trump encouraged people to get vaccinated for his birthday that'd actually make me begrudgingly respect him a bit. But he'd never do that.
Yes Modi is clearly worse than Trump, you obviously know nothing about Modi.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
Let’s hope the Health Secretary is getting a right bruising on social media for the evil gibberish he declared on Sunday.
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
I can do rants. As you probably know. That was not a "rant"
To be fair, you've got me there. I know your rants, I've been subjected to them; that was no rant.
I was trying to find another word in place of rant but fuck it - I'm not a writer.
Edit: 'railing' Right-winger railing against the Guardian. That any better?
Twattish werewolf (likely drunk) barking at moon. That seems about right.
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi may not be perfect but he is a crucial ally for the west in containing Islamic extremism and Xi's China
More like a massive recruiting agent for Islamic extremists.
You may as well say "Putin and Xi aren't perfect but they are crucial in containing Islamic extremism".
Putin to an extent is too, he was pivotal in helping Assad beat ISIS
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Yeah but buy it from Tescos for half the price beforehand - don't pay cinema prices!
Yeah! And buy cans of Carling to take to the pub and not pay pub prices! And buy a kfc bucket and take it to a nice restaurant so you dont pay their prices! And just nick shit from the shops so you don’t have to pay their prices either!
Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.
There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
So in short Redwood has a point.
Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.
Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
Do you have some data on the better conditions - what they consist of, etc?
Decent espresso at motorway service stations, Galois cigarettes, fresh croissants, that kind of thing.
At every French motorway station I have been to, the coffee has been appealing. Actually worse than Costa Coffee.
As for the food - was actually considerably worse than some UK services.
British service stations have improved immeasurably over the last 20 years, admittedly from a low base.
Obviously Killington Lakes Services is the best motorway service station in Britain but which is the worst?
I nominate Hartshead Moor on the M62, where 'All Day Breakfast' takes on a whole new meaning.
Not a motorway, as such, but the A1 has some indescribably bad services (or it did when I drove it in 2019). Like a trip back to the early 80s when the best you could hope for was Little Chef
It has always amazed me how British service stations stayed so bad for so long. The entire country went through a food revolution, every high street is full of gastropubs and delis and ethnic restaurants, everyone has tried sushi and tacos and chicken penang - and expects decent and varied tucker
Yet somehow the service stations stuck to their guns. Beans, chips, burgers, that's it. Why did no one think: wait, maybe people who drive on motorways are similar to people who eat in towns, and they would like some variety, maybe even some healthy food?
Only in very recent years has it improved
Continuing the subject of crap refreshment offerings can I give a star billing to the major cinema chains?
Cineworld in particular seem to imagine that we all want massively overpriced caricatures of US snacks that you (thankfully) won't see anywhere outside a cinema in this country:
Buckets of ice with coke syrup, buckets of tasteless popcorn, trays of stale tortilla chips with red gloop, flourescent frozen sugar slush, 'coffee' of 1970s vintage... I could go on.
[I feel much better for that rant - thanks for listening!]
All true, and it's where they make most of their money.
They're missing a big opportunity imo - hardly any of their junk gets sold in my experience.
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
I think the current multiplex cinema model is in dreadful trouble. Feels like Woolworths c.2007 to me.
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
Curzon cinemas already do that and show more highbrow independent films as well
Also: better food. And maybe wine
The Electric showed how to do it all and now there are many cinemas with great food and drink.
As long as everyone has finished eating by the time the film starts.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
I wasn't saying it was an obvious social progression, not necessarily, but that there are similarities. Views have progressed significantly. There is, clearly, a lot more disagreement about how much further, if at all, they should progress (or indeed if it has gone too far), but the salient point was that those who have found their own views have changed rapidly, that is the pro lobby, should be more capable of understanding people whose views they probably shared just a few years ago, given the rapidity.
I am sure we can all be pleased by this, whatever side we sit on. Anti-Semitism is being tackled.
Its a good start.
But only 70% of the Conference voted to tackle antisemitism, 27% voted against.
That is scary and shows what a cesspit remains within your party. That 27% should be kicked out, its a cancer in remission at the moment but it can come back again in the future.
To give him his due, Starmer is mostly picking the right fights and mostly just about getting his way. It's not pretty, and I agree that a lot of this stuff should be much less controversial than it is. But when people point and chortle at the many sh*tshow aspects of this conference, it's worth asking how else you go about cleaning a blocked toilet. And in that context, the noises off (including the resignation of Thingy Whatsisname) make sense as the howls of those who realise that howling is all that's left to them.
Not yet sufficient. But necessary.
This is a fair and interesting point. Starmer is doing a dirty job which has to be done? He won't win and become PM, but unless someone lays the groundwork - like he is doing - then Labour will never win.
There is an imbalance however, and everyone who works for the Labour party knows this is true, in that large numbers of members and fellow travellers of the Labour party have much much less interest in winning general elections than they have in other things. This is far less true of the Tories.
Starmer might wonder why the biggest obstacle to electability is the political activity of large numbers of his own party and their hangers on. It is obvious even to people who don't follow this stuff closely that he has not sorted his own party, so what makes them think his party can save the country?
I shall carry on voting Labour in local elections but not in GEs.
I remember articles, about 15 years ago, predicting the electoral doom of the Tories as their membership numbers plunged, even as other parties rallied, or even surged
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
It’s said that Corbyn was so toxic he drove voters away from voting Lib Dem because they were scared of letting him in No 10
But in his bad election, in 2019, Labour got more votes than his predecessor Ed Miliband managed in 2015, and the Lib Dem’s got more as well.
He got more than Brown in 2010 as well. And his good GE was only bettered but Blair in 97 & 01
Although given a rising population, it's not surprising that each election sees parties get record numbers of votes.
2019 Corbyn got better vote shares than Brown & Miliband too, and 2019 LD got 4% more than 2015
Some people who don’t normally take part, and didn’t in 2016, thought they could stop Brexit.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
The Left need to be a bit careful. If they are not too careful they will end up hating Starmer even more than antichrist Blair:
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 3h The only consistent thing about Keir Starmer is his addiction to making promises driven entirely by his personal ambition which he then abandons
"A man has been charged with the murder of the teacher Sabina Nessa in Kidbrooke. Koci Selamaj, who’s 36 and lives in Terminus Road in Eastbourne, will appear at Willesden Magistrates’ Court tomorrow."
But I bet they will now drop all the vigil and violence stories, and move on briskly
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
Don't read it if you don't like it. That's the approach I take to the paper that hounded Caroline Flack to her death. Works for me.
No, that's not good enough
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
Right-winger ranting against the Guardian. Whatever next?
I can do rants. As you probably know. That was not a "rant"
To be fair, you've got me there. I know your rants, I've been subjected to them; that was no rant.
I was trying to find another word in place of rant but fuck it - I'm not a writer.
Edit: 'railing' Right-winger railing against the Guardian. That any better?
Twattish werewolf (likely drunk) barking at moon. That seems about right.
Yep, I'm happy with that
Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk)
That's me! To a tee. I might even adopt it as a living epitaph.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
Is that the only reference female Tories are going to have for the rest of time?
That piece doesn't really address the switch, though sounds like it might have been the fault of those PPE professors.
After her childhood, her route toward Westminster became far more conventional. She attended Oxford University to study politics, philosophy and economics and then did stints at the oil company Shell and the right-wing think tank Reform
I cannot access it, but a Telegraph headline suggests she was actually right wing and just hadn't accepted it.
Hah! Don't tell @HYUFD - she'll be failing his True Tory Test!
I think it’s a fair question to ask her - when did you take the road to Damascus, what changed your mind?
Has she ever answered that?
Wouldn't you rather hear her talk about cheese deficits?
I think the answer is obvious. Much bigger things to worry about than a titular head of state.
I can’t wait for Truss speech, with that track record as not just being as dire as Reeves was today, but bizarrely dire.
That cheese stuff was Portilo’s SAS speech rewritten by Monty Python. Imagine how strident she can sound about Moscow and Beijing, whilst the government she is part of takes their money and lets them buy our country up. 😀
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
The Left need to be a bit careful. If they are not too careful they will end up hating Starmer even more than antichrist Blair:
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 3h The only consistent thing about Keir Starmer is his addiction to making promises driven entirely by his personal ambition which he then abandons
Of all the 'cult of personality' stories we hear from countries around the world, the 'cult' working to get people to get vaccinated is really refreshing.
It not unusual in countries like to hear that a campaign to get lots done in one day sees stuff done just before or after falsely get recorded on the campaign date itself.
Could be a lot worse.
Did you even read the article?
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
Modi may not be perfect but he is a crucial ally for the west in containing Islamic extremism and Xi's China
More like a massive recruiting agent for Islamic extremists.
You may as well say "Putin and Xi aren't perfect but they are crucial in containing Islamic extremism".
Putin to an extent is too, he was pivotal in helping Assad beat ISIS
Let’s not forget who initially backed the anti Assad movement to try and deny the Russians a warm water port!
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
The Left need to be a bit careful. If they are not too careful they will end up hating Starmer even more than antichrist Blair:
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 3h The only consistent thing about Keir Starmer is his addiction to making promises driven entirely by his personal ambition which he then abandons
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
Proof that the voters will not trust this Labour party with a majority. If Starmer becomes PM he will likely need LD support to dilute the left of the Labour Party (as well as the SNP of course).
In much the same way Cameron could only govern with the LDs in 2010 as voters ensured he would not be hostage to the party right on his backbenches who they were still wary of then
Voters colluded amongst themselves to engineer 2010? Really? Cameron put on a hundred seats. Only fell short because his campaign was so crap.
Putting on 100 seats was crap?
How many bigger swings at post war elections have there been?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
That’s what parents have believed for millennia
“It’s different now”
Sure. But remember the boy who cried Werewolf (Likely drunk)
The wolf is here. These new teens are bonkers and the whole trans debate is madness. We all know it
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
The give-away is that, instead of arguing that trans women (even if they haven't had drug and surgical treatment) should be treated as women, they insist that it it is hateful to mention the biological definition of a woman. It's like accusing those of us who know that the world is round of being hateful flat-earther-phobes.
Lord only knows where this nonsense came from, but embracing it is a jolly good way of losing elections. Voters are not going to be impressed by being accused of bigotry because they understand the basics of mammalian biology.
This bogus “consent form” is being sent to schools and some are unquestioningly sending it out with the real consent form when arranging for vaccination their pupils.
Please spread the message and warn other parents to ignore this disinformation.
In other words Blair listens to what people say and how they say it. He is not in a dumb broadcast mode.
That's the thing, it's entirely possible to disagree with Blair about Iraq, and still think that he did a lot of other things the left would like, and was a brilliant politician. But the moonbats hate everything about Blair and his cohort.
Almost all Tories love Maggie even if they think she made some big mistakes. There are barely a handful who hate her the way so many Labour supporters hate Blair.
There's something in the DNA of the Left in this country that leaves it deeply susceptible to fragmentation.
It's totally ridiculous to me that many on the far left spend more time fighting the soft-left than fighting the Tories. But there it is - and has been for as long as I can remember.
Shame we don't have an equivalent of Germany's SPD in the UK. The party that calls itself The SDP looks well to the right of the Tories to me, at least socially.
And they are winning. Rachel Reeves, her policy and messages now knocked off the BBC website by resignation of a man claiming the party is more a disunited mess now than under Corbyn.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
Proof that the voters will not trust this Labour party with a majority. If Starmer becomes PM he will likely need LD support to dilute the left of the Labour Party (as well as the SNP of course).
In much the same way Cameron could only govern with the LDs in 2010 as voters ensured he would not be hostage to the party right on his backbenches who they were still wary of then
Voters colluded amongst themselves to engineer 2010? Really? Cameron put on a hundred seats. Only fell short because his campaign was so crap.
Putting on 100 seats was crap?
How many bigger swings at post war elections have there been?
We tend to forget how much of a job there still was to do for the Tories in 2010. Yes, Brown was no Blair and Labour had been a long time in office, but they were still defending a 66 seat majority, that's not easy to overcome.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
Hah! Don't tell @HYUFD - she'll be failing his True Tory Test!
I still have reservations about voting for Truss for that reason, in my view you cannot be a republican and be Tory leader. However she does seem to have mellowed in her views of the monarchy and the Queen since
Is that the only reference female Tories are going to have for the rest of time?
That piece doesn't really address the switch, though sounds like it might have been the fault of those PPE professors.
After her childhood, her route toward Westminster became far more conventional. She attended Oxford University to study politics, philosophy and economics and then did stints at the oil company Shell and the right-wing think tank Reform
I cannot access it, but a Telegraph headline suggests she was actually right wing and just hadn't accepted it.
This bogus “consent form” is being sent to schools and some are unquestioningly sending it out with the real consent form when arranging for vaccination their pupils.
Please spread the message and warn other parents to ignore this disinformation.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
The give-away is that, instead of arguing that trans women (even if they haven't had drug and surgical treatment) should be treated as women, they insist that it it is hateful to mention the biological definition of a woman. It's like accusing those of us who know that the world is round of being hateful flat-earther-phobes.
Lord only knows where this nonsense came from, but embracing it is a jolly good way of losing elections. Voters are not going to be impressed by being accused of bigotry because they understand the basics of mammalian biology.
It also erases centuries of feminism. It's astonishing that it is the Left which embraces this mad cultic gibberish, leaving the Right to appear sane, egalitarian, and pro-women
It's more than just leaving an open goal, it's like the opposing football team running off the pitch to climb a ninety foot Inuit plastic totem pole covered in superglue, halfway through the match, and refusing to come down, even as they lose 19-nil, partly because they are now glued to the pole and cannot detach
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women] The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW" It's "I start from the position that..."
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
I think the fundamental problem (well one of them) is that views on what is now not only acceptable but only right and proper have advanced very very quickly. Which can be a good thing indeed - loads of politicians still active today used to oppose gay marriage, a view which would probably now be anathema in many of the same political circles.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
No, the trans argument is different. This is not an obvious social progression, this is quite bizarre and extreme beliefs being smuggled in AS progression
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
Its not bizarre when you approach it from the view of teenagers today who I understand are very individualistic - they believe that you can define yourself how you want. It probably comes from growing up with the Internet and being able to find communities of every foreseeable niche.
But I know these teens, personally. They are deeply, deeply confused. They're not happy (OK teens are never happy but this cohort is especially messed)
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
Too many of them are going to university
University has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and her friends didn’t go to university and they don’t have vastly dissimilar views
Can women have penises?
If a person with a penis wanted me to refer to them as a she I would have no problem referring to them as such. To do otherwise would be rude.
Comments
It's at the top of the Guardian website. Fair enough that the Guardian deserves to get trolled as often as possible, but using this is a little... hmmm
What is in treating about the following is that it is totally non-cooperative. The researchers simply used the signals from the SpaceX constellation, without assistance from SpaceX.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/09/researchers-use-starlink-satellites-to-pinpoint-location-similar-to-gps/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/27/sabina-nessa-man-charged-murder-london-schoolteacher
Where are these articles now? Labour gained about ten trillion members under Corbyn, and went down to a terrible, historic GE defeat. The SNP gained a zillion members after indyref, and yet indyref2 is as far away as ever, and now the members flee
In today's world it is arguable that having loads of members is BAD, as they are likely to be insane (Corbyn's Labour) or unhelpfully obsessed with one issue (Sturgeon's SNP). And then you have to shed them. Not easy
All you want, as a party these days, is people to put leaflets through boxes. They can be hired
(I accept that it may be different at the films teens go to but if UK teens really liked pop-corn and hotdogs so much why aren't there high street chains of hot-dog restaurants?)
Horrible story and we should let the facts come out and justice be served, not have this become some race-baiting circus.
Yep. They're quietly ignoring it by putting it at the top of their front page:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/27/sabina-nessa-man-charged-murder-london-schoolteacher
It's what they do. This is, remember, the paper which shamelessly insinuated that Times reporter Andrew Norfolk was a "racist" for his early reporting on the gang rapes in Rotherham
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition
No apology, no retraction. Three years later they ran editorials like this:
"When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. So, more recently, was the Times reporter Andrew Norfolk, whose painstaking investigation has done so much to bring the exploitation to light."
THE SAME FUCKING NEWSPAPER
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/guardian-view-rotherham-child-abuse-scandal
Having popcorn at the cinema is like having a pint at the pub. Its all part of the experience.
There are some decent hot dog "diner" restaurants about, but popcorn is perfectly designed for the cinema. Can nibble on it over a couple of hours while watching the movie, without making any noise to disturb anyone else.
We need you to repent in your next post.
https://www.ft.com/content/3ac845c1-634d-4424-bcd7-bb938fee02c3
The seven energy suppliers wot went bust recently is going to mean an extra £30 added onto everyone’s bills from next April.
And that’s just 7 companies, 1.5m customers. Talk of 40 or more going under. By my calculations, next years energy bills could end up being on average, £150-200 more as a result of this mess.
The Labour Left are winning this week hands down.
The Labour Left are winning this week in the same way as Macron won with respect to AUKUS.
This was entirely to glorify the great leader's birthday.
I'm surprised when you are so anti-Trump that you are willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt when he is far worse than Trump.
If Trump had organised the faking of vaccinations in order for the country to "celebrate" Trump's birthday would you have praised it?
But in his bad election, in 2019, Labour got more votes than his predecessor Ed Miliband managed in 2015, and the Lib Dem’s got more as well.
He got more than Brown in 2010 as well. And his good GE was only bettered by Blair in 97 & 01
It went so bad for him because the Tories got all the 2015 UKIP vote, that were split in 2017 because Labour weren’t trying to get a second referendum then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)
A free press is a free press, and I vehemently support it, but when the media are politically corrosive, that must be called out, too.
Just saying "you don't have to read it" is not sufficient
The Daily Mail does some really good and some really bad things. The Guardian, its weird mirror-image twin sister, does the same. The Guardian's treatment of the Asian Grooming scandal was particularly wicked, and given its influence in media and political circles (maybe less now, but powerful from about 1995-2015) probably led to significant delay in many girls achieving justice. They would have closed down the Times' Andrew Norfolk, as a "racist", given the chance
I don't want the Guardian closed down. It is an important voice. But I didn't want the News of the World closed down, it was a different kind of voice, but also needed
I just don't trust the instincts of the Guardianista, on issues like this
In much the same way Cameron could only govern with the LDs in 2010 as voters ensured he would not be hostage to the party right on his backbenches who they were still wary of then
The niche is to move to very small screens that can sit 30-50 people (max) in very comfortable seats with drinks and food delivered. You can even hire it out for a party.
That would get punters in again - for the experience.
It used to actually cost more to have a smaller drink for some reason, part of meal deal probably, so in the end they finally agreed to charge me for the larger one even as I had a small (still large) one.
I was trying to find another word in place of rant but fuck it - I'm not a writer.
Edit: 'railing' Right-winger railing against the Guardian. That any better?
"Bumped into @lisanandy last night in the bar, briefly. She said "I start from the position that TWAW" [trans women are women]
The interesting bit about this is not "TWAW"
It's "I start from the position that..."
I just said: 'Why?'
We didn't get much further."
https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1442589999602470925?s=20
As he implies, this is quite bizarre thinking. Like "trans women are women" is some fundamental rule, a truism known by anyone from the age of 3, who then move on. Like simple arithmetic. Like 2+2=4.
Labour are messed up, part 5,028
You may as well say "Putin and Xi aren't perfect but they are crucial in containing Islamic extremism".
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1442562337051869189?s=21
https://twitter.com/mosley6graham/status/1442493410259132417?s=21
At the 1994 Lib Dem conference
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/liberal-democrats-conference-day-2-minimum-wage-vote-news-footage/1340885506
I highly doubt that Modi pressured or ordered anyone to fake the vaccination dates. Instead what normally happens with this kind of thing is that people are pressured/incentivised to do well on a particular date which then leads to people down the chain fudging stuff they're responsible for in order to look impressive to their superiors.
Happens all the time. Another example was Ethiopia planting over 300million trees "in 12 hoours". After it was claimed, lots of reports came out saying that the trees being recorded in one day had actually been planted over many days but been recorded on one date. Just like this. China did something similar recently too from memory.
If Trump encouraged people to get vaccinated for his birthday that'd actually make me begrudgingly respect him a bit. But he'd never do that.
But what that does mean is that some people who have either not moved on at all, or have moved along but not quite so far or fast, are getting treated like pariahs for views that were mainstream very very recently, or still are mainstream in fact.
Now, that is not a million miles away from a 'This was a normal view in the 1950s' defence, but part of the problem, and I do come at it from a different angle than Nandy, is that even if one thinks that the path being moved toward is ultimately correct, there should be more understanding of resistance to that from people holding a view that was just years ago or still is very common, rather than a sort of outraged bafflement that lumps such people in with the most unreconstructed transphobe.
Even if it is felt to be a political sin now, not all sins are equal, and you can push people into feeling they have no choice but to make common bedfellowes with some unappetising folk.
What has Farage or the Guardian got to do with anything?
Are you alluding to the guy's ethnicity? I don't recall you made any similar assumptions over the Sarah Everard case.
Anyway there will be a court case before you and Mr Farage become entitled to jump to your bizarre conclusions.
Cf some of the madder debates of the 1970s permissive society
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1442472425183010824
Has she ever answered that?
As long as everyone has finished eating by the time the film starts.
Foxjr2 is rather partial to a Tango Ice Blast. In normal times we each go at least once a month.
I think the answer is obvious. Much bigger things to worry about than a titular head of state.
Owen Jones 🌹
@OwenJones84
·
3h
The only consistent thing about Keir Starmer is his addiction to making promises driven entirely by his personal ambition which he then abandons
Twattish Werewolf (Likely Drunk)
That's me! To a tee. I might even adopt it as a living epitaph.
It's a mixture of toxic gender politics (pushed by extreme trans activists and others) plus the poison of endless social media
It ain't good
https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-britain-new-iron-lady-uk-conservatives/
Is that the only reference female Tories are going to have for the rest of time?
That piece doesn't really address the switch, though sounds like it might have been the fault of those PPE professors.
After her childhood, her route toward Westminster became far more conventional. She attended Oxford University to study politics, philosophy and economics and then did stints at the oil company Shell and the right-wing think tank Reform
I cannot access it, but a Telegraph headline suggests she was actually right wing and just hadn't accepted it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/02/06/liz-trusspeople-kept-telling-tory-finally-accepted-inevitability/
That cheese stuff was Portilo’s SAS speech rewritten by Monty Python. Imagine how strident she can sound about Moscow and Beijing, whilst the government she is part of takes their money and lets them buy our country up. 😀
“It’s different now”
But can you do it without the charisma?
How many bigger swings at post war elections have there been?
The wolf is here. These new teens are bonkers and the whole trans debate is madness. We all know it
And then when in power they double gloucestered.
Lord only knows where this nonsense came from, but embracing it is a jolly good way of losing elections. Voters are not going to be impressed by being accused of bigotry because they understand the basics of mammalian biology.
Kit Yates @Kit_Yates_Maths
This is absolutely despicable.
This bogus “consent form” is being sent to schools and some are unquestioningly sending it out with the real consent form when arranging for vaccination their pupils.
Please spread the message and warn other parents to ignore this disinformation.
https://twitter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1442571448112013319
(Actually, I've only been to one meeting that started in this manner.)
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1431285895399944197?s=20
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1380493815958618114?s=20
She’s massively over rated. About the next Thatcher as Boris is the new Churchill.
I can’t wait for her big speech.
It's more than just leaving an open goal, it's like the opposing football team running off the pitch to climb a ninety foot Inuit plastic totem pole covered in superglue, halfway through the match, and refusing to come down, even as they lose 19-nil, partly because they are now glued to the pole and cannot detach