Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Eh, in some age groups over half the population have used Tinder? So yes it does sound very much like women shouldn't dress like that.
On the practicalities of it, on first impressions I am unconvinced she was being specifically targeted, it is not particularly unusual for an attractive woman to get 1000+ matches, and users have limited control over who they can see and tend to spend less than a second making a judgment so are unlikely to have made the connection between her and the protest.
If it was 50 out of 100 matches then obviously they are somehow targeting her. If it was 50 out 2500 matches then probably not.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
Judging by the Met's response, they are.
They should get back to their day jobs - arresting people wearing loud clothes in built up areas....
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
Judging by the Met's response, they are.
Oh, you left that bit out, details?
Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.
It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.
The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
#Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe via Belarus and Poland by 70% and via Ukraine by 20% Since. Last. Week. These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move. https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
Judging by the Met's response, they are.
Oh, you left that bit out, details?
Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.
It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.
The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
If they are all/mostly coppers, and it was organised (rather than coincidental), then they should all be sacked.
Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Charisma trumps all. Trump himself, Arnie, Reagan, and now Boris all learned their craft on the small or big screen.
It really does. And it’s worth noting that ‘having charisma’ does not, of itself, make a leader a charlatan or a fraud. In fact a big dash of charisma can make you a great leader, because people will follow you, and you get things done
There are lots of awful autocrats who had charisma. Gadaffi, Castro, even Hitler, god help us
But Churchill also had charisma. So did Thatcher, in a very different way. Abraham Lincoln?
Then you get leaders with charisma who do little with it. Blair, JFK (in the latter case not his own fault)
Boris definitely had it. The first UK PM since Blair with the gift. We wait to see if he will use it well
This is interesting on the power of the Boris brand. People queueing 5 hours to see his speech today
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. There's no contradiction in thinking that the short-term 'problems' caused by correcting a structural imbalance are no problem.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
Judging by the Met's response, they are.
Oh, you left that bit out, details?
Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.
It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.
The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
If they are all/mostly coppers, and it was organised (rather than coincidental), then they should all be sacked.
I think that's what the pre-action letter might be going for.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
My point this morning:
Boris: Brexit is not responsible for shortages, supply issues, mass pigocide, etc Also Boris: The economy is experiencing stresses and strains which you'd expect from Brexit and is part of our Grand Plan.
This is the week Brexit finally jumped the shark. But as we know soap operas can stagger on for several seasons long past the point where they make any sense at all.
Expect plenty more of this stuff from Johnson. It's all he's got but he's safe. It will be enough to keep the 40% happy and no-one else can out-bluster him.
Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
Trump is exactly the same phenomenon. Worse though, because his vision is far darker than Johnson's. I view Johnson as a threat to good government. Trump is a threat to democracy itself.
#Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe via Belarus and Poland by 70% and via Ukraine by 20% Since. Last. Week. These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move. https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882
As some of us have been saying for weeks. Putin is playing games with Europe’s gas supply, just because he can. He’s showing Germany who’s now in charge.
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
Quite so. Tinder is huge - all the young single women I know use it. Without any bother. This sounds like a pile-on by the police, grotesque bullying; and if so, they should be identified and disciplined.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
Babies aged 3-4 don't normally have teething problems.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
We shall no doubt see if there is further investigation. I would put precisely nothing beyond the police right now.
But your reaction to there being weirdos and perverts on a well-used dating app is to tell the women to stay off it. Is that the answer?
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
As we get closer to real bits falling off the economy, the delusions seem to be getting stronger.
It’s actually quite scary.
Philip T now seems to suggest it is necessary to destroy the economy to save it; yesterday he likened FOM to the trans-atlantic slave trade.
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
Indeed it does. I've been gently trying to suggest since the 2019 campaign that the PM was running against Thatcherism. All her shibboleths are being trashed. Am amazed folk still can't see it.
Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.
Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
Indeed it does. I've been gently trying to suggest since the 2019 campaign that the PM was running against Thatcherism. All her shibboleths are being trashed. Am amazed folk still can't see it.
Quite. And we all know what happened before Mrs T. Inflation. Massive inflation.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
You're spot on right here. The Tories are now the anti- Margaret Party. Starmer is continuity Thatcher lite.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
As we get closer to real bits falling off the economy, the delusions seem to be getting stronger.
It’s actually quite scary.
Philip T now seems to suggest it is necessary to destroy the economy to save it; yesterday he likened FOM to the trans-atlantic slave trade.
There does seem to be much searching for answers to the economic challenges, with some increasingly desperate ideas getting floated. Personally not convinced there are any great options, although of course some are better than others.
The best, but least useful now, answer is not to start from here, which is where the King of Brexit has led us to.
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
There was more disappointing economic news Wednesday, as German factory orders, a normally reliable leading indicator of trends in Europe's largest economy, fell 7.7% in August, a sharp slowdown from the 4.9% gain in July.
Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Charisma trumps all. Trump himself, Arnie, Reagan, and now Boris all learned their craft on the small or big screen.
It really does. And it’s worth noting that ‘having charisma’ does not, of itself, make a leader a charlatan or a fraud. In fact a big dash of charisma can make you a great leader, because people will follow you, and you get things done
There are lots of awful autocrats who had charisma. Gadaffi, Castro, even Hitler, god help us
But Churchill also had charisma. So did Thatcher, in a very different way. Abraham Lincoln?
Then you get leaders with charisma who do little with it. Blair, JFK (in the latter case not his own fault)
Boris definitely had it. The first UK PM since Blair with the gift. We wait to see if he will use it well
This is interesting on the power of the Boris brand. People queueing 5 hours to see his speech today
Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
Does it work well enough for his mostly retired voters?
The sunny optimism can distract from the complaints of younger workers/sour-faced Trots. It's a strategy to defuse the risk of the old feeling compassion for the young.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. There's no contradiction in thinking that the short-term 'problems' caused by correcting a structural imbalance are no problem.
And that would be fine of that was their argument. "Yes we have shortages now but look at where we are going". Fine. But they are simultaneously denying issues whilst saying the issues are a result of the Brexit transformation. That you cannot blame Brexit for issues (George Eustace on Question Time) and then should welcome the issues as Brexit fixing our economy.
Its hypocrisy, contradiction, double-speak guff. Decide a line and stick to it.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?
They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
Judging by the Met's response, they are.
Some people merely say defund the police, you say nuke them? Is that language helpful when the police have a trust issue we all need to rebuild?
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.
Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?
How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Indeed. How is that any different to the delivery or taxi driver phoning up their lady customer a few days later, asking her on a date? Apart from the aggregating factors of the uniforms and warrant cards, of course.
Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.
Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
Asset inflation and non asset inflation have diverged massively, which also means people's individual inflation rates will be much more variable than historically. Some are seeing deflation in their costs and rising incomes, others inflation and stable incomes.
Whilst PT may be pushing the selective use of stats and language beyond the limits of reasonableness, I would not disagree that wage and general price inflation has been too low, and asset inflation too high.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
No Idea. Perhaps TSE can tell us more about how Tinder works...
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain
eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
As always, there is an expert on every topic on PB...
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
The issue seems to be that a collective pile-on might have happened - if so, it would count as a conspiracy to breach discipline or general good practice (though not necessarily in the strict legal meanings of the words). That would be much more serious than a single copper or taxi-jockey.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain
eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
Mitterrand certainly.
A lot of French people revere Mitterand, I don’t quite get it. A cunning politician who survived his enemies, is what I see. But maybe it’s just a cultural blindness (on my part).
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
If half the lecturers in the Politics and Law faculty targeted one female student?
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain
eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
Countdown's about to start on C4
I was wondering for a moment which of Musk's rockets you meant.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
Perhaps reflects FPTP vs proportional systems? You need a broad church party to win under FPTP, with a range of ideologies and policy stances. Perhaps leader charisma plays a bigger part in holding that together than with a narrower, more ideologically coherent, party. Plus what plays well in one culture may not in another. Kohl was a colossal, dominating figure in Germany, and I think exerted a kind of charisma. Germans are wary of overly charismatic leaders, for obvious reasons. Mitterand in France, Berlusconi, as you say (and is seen as a responsible elder statesman these days) were pretty charismatic politicians.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
Also, anything not worth doing.
I was taught
(a) that anythjing worth doing is worth doing well
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
And the biggest employer of all would need big tax hikes to pay for any rises. Those tax hikes wont hit the retired client vote so it will be down to high and medium earning workers.
#Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe via Belarus and Poland by 70% and via Ukraine by 20% Since. Last. Week. These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move. https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882
It's slightly bizarre, but Putin should perhaps be up for the Nobel Peace Prize* in a few years for averting climate catastrophe by accelerating Europe's switch to renewables
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.
Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
Mitterrand certainly.
A lot of French people revere Mitterand, I don’t quite get it. A cunning politician who survived his enemies, is what I see. But maybe it’s just a cultural blindness (on my part).
They revere him cos he won from the Left. Imagine 35+ years of voting for the losing candidate. That's why he's liked.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
I agree with that.
So if you want workers to get a better salary then you need to be in a position where they can demand a better wage and the businesses and shareholders have no choice but to give that to them.
That doesn't mean striking, it doesn't mean unions, it means full employment and a competitive labour market. What we have now, we're in that sweet spot.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
If half the lecturers in the Politics and Law faculty targeted one female student?
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain
eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
He speaks to two audiences. Actually three. First the conference audience which adores him and who he can take less seriously; secondly the wider public for whom there must be the obligator Boris Joke and also some serious NHS/levelling up/vaccines soundbites.
And the third audience is small, it might only be himself, but likely to be some confidantes also, for whom the whole thing is a huge joke that is being perpetrated on the party and the public. Hence the knowing smiles and smirks and as I mentioned earlier, breaking of the fourth wall.
I've never really been into superhero movies or series, although the Marvel films and Agents of Shield were fun.
But there's a series I've really enjoyed: Stargirl, available on Amazon. The first series was a fairly standard kids-gain-superhero-powers thing. The second series has been brilliant so far, with the kids having to face the consequences of their actions in the first series (taking lives) and a villain who could be good, or could be evil.
It's well balanced; fun and light at times, and also fairly dramatic at others. I've really enjoyed it.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
Perhaps reflects FPTP vs proportional systems? You need a broad church party to win under FPTP, with a range of ideologies and policy stances. Perhaps leader charisma plays a bigger part in holding that together than with a narrower, more ideologically coherent, party. Plus what plays well in one culture may not in another. Kohl was a colossal, dominating figure in Germany, and I think exerted a kind of charisma. Germans are wary of overly charismatic leaders, for obvious reasons. Mitterand in France, Berlusconi, as you say (and is seen as a responsible elder statesman these days) were pretty charismatic politicians.
Kohl was massively charismatic - read up on how he dominated his political rivals and supporters with his personality. He was limited, internationally by the place of West Germany in the scheme of things.
Merkel used a different kind of charisma, but it was (and is) charisma that she used to dominate German politics.
Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkosy all used force of personality as their "thing" as well.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
Not the government line. Nor yours previously (shortage what shortage).
Now as I said we are at teething issues. I hope it doesn't progress from there.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
The Clinton moment will be if big ticket donor switch to the Labour party, in return for promises to create FOM (in effect) by watering down the visa system.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
That, but I think the issue is that the idea you can wage-rise yourself to prosperity is economic junk, and most everyone serious knows it.
To hear it from the PM and (a little softer) from the CoE is disturbing. And then, coupled with the increasing news of inflation, it’s adding up to “this is not the Toryism I’ve spent my adult life espousing”.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
And the biggest employer of all would need big tax hikes to pay for any rises. Those tax hikes wont hit the retired client vote so it will be down to high and medium earning workers.
The high pay the government wants doesn't apply to its own employees silly.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
Ian Paisley?
He might bridle at the suggestion he is "non-UK". No, no, no.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.
Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?
How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
I advocate for market rate for wages. If wages are going up because we're in a competitive labour market with full employment then that's fantastic. If we have unemployment then wages should go down to get the unemployed into work. Supply and demand.
If you can tell me when "Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill" promised such a laissez-faire attitude then I'd love to see it.
If you advocate for laissez-faire attitudes when that means wages going down, then how can you not stick with a laissez-faire attitude when that means wages going up? If you only do it in one direction you're not laissez-faire you're exploiting it one way for your own agenda.
Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
Trump is exactly the same phenomenon. Worse though, because his vision is far darker than Johnson's. I view Johnson as a threat to good government. Trump is a threat to democracy itself.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
I think we'd get in trouble for pinning a student to the floor, never mind harassing her on Tinder afterwards. Different standards...
(Actually, we'd probably get sacked for getting within 2m of a student; our uni is still being strict on Covid social distancing)
Comments
On the practicalities of it, on first impressions I am unconvinced she was being specifically targeted, it is not particularly unusual for an attractive woman to get 1000+ matches, and users have limited control over who they can see and tend to spend less than a second making a judgment so are unlikely to have made the connection between her and the protest.
If it was 50 out of 100 matches then obviously they are somehow targeting her. If it was 50 out 2500 matches then probably not.
So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.
The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
via Belarus and Poland by 70%
and via Ukraine by 20%
Since. Last. Week.
These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move.
https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882
And made words up.
There are lots of awful autocrats who had charisma. Gadaffi, Castro, even Hitler, god help us
But Churchill also had charisma. So did Thatcher, in a very different way. Abraham Lincoln?
Then you get leaders with charisma who do little with it. Blair, JFK (in the latter case not his own fault)
Boris definitely had it. The first UK PM since Blair with the gift. We wait to see if he will use it well
This is interesting on the power of the Boris brand. People queueing 5 hours to see his speech today
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/boris-johnson-devotees-queue-for-hours-for-leaders-conference-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
Expect plenty more of this stuff from Johnson. It's all he's got but he's safe. It will be enough to keep the 40% happy and no-one else can out-bluster him.
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
They need sacking
But your reaction to there being weirdos and perverts on a well-used dating app is to tell the women to stay off it. Is that the answer?
It’s actually quite scary.
Philip T now seems to suggest it is necessary to destroy the economy to save it; yesterday he likened FOM to the trans-atlantic slave trade.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/11/is-it-judgment-or-judgement/
Am amazed folk still can't see it.
Thought not
Starmer is continuity Thatcher lite.
The best, but least useful now, answer is not to start from here, which is where the King of Brexit has led us to.
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/european-stock-futures-lower-german-factory-orders-slump-2635833
6/6/2020
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/
The sunny optimism can distract from the complaints of younger workers/sour-faced Trots. It's a strategy to defuse the risk of the old feeling compassion for the young.
Its hypocrisy, contradiction, double-speak guff. Decide a line and stick to it.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?
How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
It was because Corbyn was a useless nonentity that he lost GE2019.
Whilst PT may be pushing the selective use of stats and language beyond the limits of reasonableness, I would not disagree that wage and general price inflation has been too low, and asset inflation too high.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
Very, very silly boys. Brings their employer into disrepute, which is a legitimate disciplinary matter.
(a) that anythjing worth doing is worth doing well
and
(b) 7Ps
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/7_Ps_(military_adage)
*well, if the IPCC can win it...
House price inflation has been dangerously high.
We need to reverse that.
So if you want workers to get a better salary then you need to be in a position where they can demand a better wage and the businesses and shareholders have no choice but to give that to them.
That doesn't mean striking, it doesn't mean unions, it means full employment and a competitive labour market. What we have now, we're in that sweet spot.
And the third audience is small, it might only be himself, but likely to be some confidantes also, for whom the whole thing is a huge joke that is being perpetrated on the party and the public. Hence the knowing smiles and smirks and as I mentioned earlier, breaking of the fourth wall.
I've never really been into superhero movies or series, although the Marvel films and Agents of Shield were fun.
But there's a series I've really enjoyed: Stargirl, available on Amazon. The first series was a fairly standard kids-gain-superhero-powers thing. The second series has been brilliant so far, with the kids having to face the consequences of their actions in the first series (taking lives) and a villain who could be good, or could be evil.
It's well balanced; fun and light at times, and also fairly dramatic at others. I've really enjoyed it.
Merkel used a different kind of charisma, but it was (and is) charisma that she used to dominate German politics.
Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkosy all used force of personality as their "thing" as well.
Now as I said we are at teething issues. I hope it doesn't progress from there.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
To hear it from the PM and (a little softer) from the CoE is disturbing. And then, coupled with the increasing news of inflation, it’s adding up to “this is not the Toryism I’ve spent my adult life espousing”.
If you can tell me when "Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill" promised such a laissez-faire attitude then I'd love to see it.
If you advocate for laissez-faire attitudes when that means wages going down, then how can you not stick with a laissez-faire attitude when that means wages going up? If you only do it in one direction you're not laissez-faire you're exploiting it one way for your own agenda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58814418
(Actually, we'd probably get sacked for getting within 2m of a student; our uni is still being strict on Covid social distancing)