By far the biggest concern of MPs today – what’s happening to their constituency in the boundary rev

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Qantas 'disturbed' by claims of gang infiltration

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57379984

Wide use of encrypted phones...interesting tit bit, encrochat operation apparently was brought to an early end, because a low level British police intelligence handler that was working in the NW leaked it to local criminals that their network had been comprised.

Airlines are caught up in this sort of activity quite regularly.

Usually it’s cabin crew smuggling stuff - they’re not well paid, but are good at putting on a well-dressed face to customs agents. Good mules for the gangs.

The Qantas bit wasn't surprisijg or interesting to me, it was the encrypted phone network.

Presumably related to EncroChat, which got hacked by British and French spooks, and led to an awful lot of arrests last year. The authorities were able to read everyone’s messages, and a lot of criminals were very honest about their activities when they thought no-one could read them.

https://www.techspot.com/news/85868-police-hack-encrypted-phone-network-used-organize-drug.html

Although it has lead to a huge number of arrests of big players, its actually a big blow that the NW police intelligence unit had a mole, who leaked this to the criminal underworld. At the time, EncroChat and the criminals were totally unaware this was even possible.

Indeed. It would have likely come out in court at some point, or been divulged to a defence team, but someone in the police giving a tip-off to the bad guys was not good.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lib Dems going hard on anti-development to try and win Chesham & Amersham by-elex. Quote just out: "Tory plans will allow developers to tarmac over greenbelt sites across the Chilterns without local people having any say, risking irreversible damage to the local environment."

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1401871936767021064?s=20

It is true that Tory plans largely involve further emasculation of local planning power.

Mr. Walker, your 'order' comment suddenly reminds me of Monkey from Journey to the West.

Although his laziness is quite like Pig.

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

Hello there Ed. Thanks for "well argued". Not sure it was really. Rather an impressionistic take. I view things more like a teenage girl does than the typical spocky middle-aged men who make the weather on this site. But there's nobody sharper in this world than a teenage girl, right? So it's adding value.

We are indeed all individuals with our own thoughts and ideas. And people certainly should not be stereotyped based on assumed group level characteristics. Nobody would disagree with this. So given you've put it out there I know for a fact you mean something more interesting, ie something which can be disagreed with. If you tell me what it is, I'll be able to do the disagreement.

The PIE point is the standard riposte to the "Today's Transphobes = Yesterday's Homophobes" argument, isn't it? But it doesn't rebut the argument, it reinforces it. Because inherent in there is the exact view - this yucky unnatural thing is a menace akin to and linked to pedophilia - that informed the suppression of gay people for so long (and still does in places).

I agree with you that ideas about how society should develop don't become certain to prevail merely by being badged "progressive". They have to enthuse enough people - and be accepted or tolerated by many many more - for this to happen. Which is what IS happening on this stuff we're talking about. It's clear that it is. Why else, despite all the Trumps and the Brexits and the Tory landslides, are people on the reactionary right so mad about how things are going?

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

Thanks, I was asking after all.

Anyway, if he said they would be getting 28 days notice in advance, and no notice has been given, that suggests it is unlikely to be given the green light.

It will be an absolute disaster for the industry – and for thousands of brides nationwide, many of whom are now on their third postponement. My friend has no interest in football, as is asking why Euro 2021 can have 22,500 fans at Wembley, but she cannot have 80 guests at her wedding.

Just increase the limit of guests for weddings and receptions to 100 but no more than that from 21st June, no problem.

Or 100 for outside receptions, 50 for indoor receptions

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

isam said:

DougSeal said:

A mere 20 years ago. 9 years later...

Freedom of Movement + an uncharismatic Labour PM?

...more likely a financial crash followed by Brexit and Corbyn, but then as that doesn't fit your narrative, I will concede defeat.

The garrulous will inherit the earth and the meek receive nothing

Our own Meek was really rather garrulous....and yet flounced off with nothing.

If true, a case to bolster my debate with Isam who believes only the loudest and most boisterous Prime Ministerial candidates win General Elections. And to my knowledge our very own illustrious Remainer is not yet PM, although I live in hope.

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

"German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Monday that the right for individual EU member states to veto decisions must be scrapped, saying that the 27-member bloc cannot be hamstrung by single hold-outs"

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1401872819621879808

And so the case for our having Brexited becomes overwhelming.....

Part of my argument for Remain was indeed to veto such stuff.

Having said that it’s one thing the German Foreign Minister saying something and another thing the EU actually doing it.

That didn't work out well for the areas where QMV is already a thing.

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

That was changed back in mid-May, I thought?

Exactly – vacillation – the government has delayed its decision, which is my point.

I was just surprised that since the date for the decision had been moved to the 14th several weeks ago, that anyone was expecting anything before that date.

"Boris’s great “strength” - as that article points out - is optimism and providing voters with a sense of agency. He conveys a sense of impatience with “process” and a comic subversion of “order” which is construed by voters as a sense of action and an identification with the “people” versus the brahmins."

I think iSam analogy with Del Boy is very fitting. We know he lies, he cheats, he is looking out for number one, but people love him even when they get screwed, he is a bit cheeky, a bit naughty, will make you laugh at his missteps, and no matter what happens, next year will we will be milllionaiiiiiresss bruv.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

Thanks, I was asking after all.

Anyway, if he said they would be getting 28 days notice in advance, and no notice has been given, that suggests it is unlikely to be given the green light.

It will be an absolute disaster for the industry – and for thousands of brides nationwide, many of whom are now on their third postponement. My friend has no interest in football, as is asking why Euro 2021 can have 22,500 fans at Wembley, but she cannot have 80 guests at her wedding.

I sympathise: I have a close relative in a similar position.
I am slightly taken with your description of “thousands of brides” though: do the grooms not get a postponement as well? What about the weddings which don’t involve a bride?

How many grooms are going to be inviting more than 40 from their side ?!

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

That was changed back in mid-May, I thought?

Exactly – vacillation – the government has delayed its decision, which is my point.

I was just surprised that since the date for the decision had been moved to the 14th several weeks ago, that anyone was expecting anything before that date.

You just don't get it do you? She is on her third postponement and was promised a decision by 24 May. Now she has to wait until 14 June – just a few days before her wedding is due to take place.

Not even sure why you are defending this vacillation by a frit, irrational government.

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

"German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Monday that the right for individual EU member states to veto decisions must be scrapped, saying that the 27-member bloc cannot be hamstrung by single hold-outs"

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1401872819621879808

And so the case for our having Brexited becomes overwhelming.....

Part of my argument for Remain was indeed to veto such stuff.

Having said that it’s one thing the German Foreign Minister saying something and another thing the EU actually doing it.

That didn't work out well for the areas where QMV is already a thing.

We agreed to QMV.

I am not an expert on what was covered by QMV but rationally speaking there are definitely *some* areas for which QMV makes sense.

Anabobazina said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Anabobazina said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

Thanks, I was asking after all.

Anyway, if he said they would be getting 28 days notice in advance, and no notice has been given, that suggests it is unlikely to be given the green light.

It will be an absolute disaster for the industry – and for thousands of brides nationwide, many of whom are now on their third postponement. My friend has no interest in football, as is asking why Euro 2021 can have 22,500 fans at Wembley, but she cannot have 80 guests at her wedding.

I sympathise: I have a close relative in a similar position.
I am slightly taken with your description of “thousands of brides” though: do the grooms not get a postponement as well? What about the weddings which don’t involve a bride?

Thousands of brides, grooms, best men, maids of honour, bridesmaids, pageboys, mothers-of-the-bride, fathers-of-the-bride, groomsmen and ushers.

Do I get to use the word synecdoche here then?

Indeed! My use of brides was shorthand!

That is probably the first time I have been able to use the word where I wasn’t talking about a film.

HYUFD said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

Thanks, I was asking after all.

Anyway, if he said they would be getting 28 days notice in advance, and no notice has been given, that suggests it is unlikely to be given the green light.

It will be an absolute disaster for the industry – and for thousands of brides nationwide, many of whom are now on their third postponement. My friend has no interest in football, as is asking why Euro 2021 can have 22,500 fans at Wembley, but she cannot have 80 guests at her wedding.

Just increase the limit of guests for weddings and receptions to 100 but no more than that from 21st June, no problem.

Or 100 for outside receptions, 50 for indoor receptions

Yes, something like that would help her plan – refusing to say a word until 14 June is barmy. The government has already recognised that the wedding industry needs plenty of notice.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Christ alive...

Get off my land! Moment farmer uses a DIGGER to flip vehicle over that's blocking his gate - while its irate driver can only film on his phone

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9659643/Get-CAR-land-Moment-farmer-uses-DIGGER-flip-vehicle-blocking-gate.html

In Barnard Castle.....

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

That was changed back in mid-May, I thought?

Exactly – vacillation – the government has delayed its decision, which is my point.

I was just surprised that since the date for the decision had been moved to the 14th several weeks ago, that anyone was expecting anything before that date.

You just don't get it do you? She is on her third postponement and was promised a decision by 24 May. Now she has to wait until 14 June – just a few days before her wedding is due to take place.

Not even sure why you are defending this vacillation by a frit, irrational government.

I'm not defending anything - but given that the decision was put back to the 14th, it just seemed surprising to expect anything earlier.

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Christ alive...

Get off my land! Moment farmer uses a DIGGER to flip vehicle over that's blocking his gate - while its irate driver can only film on his phone

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9659643/Get-CAR-land-Moment-farmer-uses-DIGGER-flip-vehicle-blocking-gate.html

In Barnard Castle.....

I hope the driver hadn't just stopped because he had been testing his eye sight and wasn't sure if he could continue....

isam said:

Mexicanpete said:

isam said:

Mexicanpete said:

isam said:

DougSeal said:

A mere 20 years ago. 9 years later...

Freedom of Movement + an uncharismatic Labour PM?

...more likely a financial crash followed by Brexit and Corbyn, but then as that doesn't fit your narrative, I will concede defeat.

The garrulous will inherit the earth and the meek receive nothing

My opinion does dove tail with my narrative quite a lot - what a shocker!

You don’t have to concede defeat, different views are allowed

Your narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Heath in 1970, possibly even Mrs Thatcher in 1979 or even 1987, Major and certainly Mrs May versus "oh Jeremy Corbyn".

I’ve said this God knows how many times, but I will again

The data starts in 1979
Thatcher was considered more charismatic than Callaghan
Major lost 60 seats to the opponent Thatcher thrashed
Corbyn outperformed the polls by virtue of having more charisma

My narrative is based on solid data and hasn’t failed in 42 years

...but I have given you an alternative view for 1979, 1987, 1992 and 2017.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

Hpw do you define "woke" ?

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

We’re out of it now, so it’s none of our business.
Frankly I respect the French for defending and promoting their culture.

We're allowed to comment on it, aren't we? Just like how we can comment on what is happening in the US, or elsewhere.

Typically the discourse on here is to point out EU failure and French pomposity etc because Brexit must be seen to be successful.

It’s Freudian.

It's just the news coming out of the EU. You're free to point out EU successes if you so wish.

I have a day job.

But you don’t need to have a PhD in media studies to understand that there are certain narratives in the U.K. which are pushed eagerly.

Every country has their own set.

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

We’re out of it now, so it’s none of our business.
Frankly I respect the French for defending and promoting their culture.

We're allowed to comment on it, aren't we? Just like how we can comment on what is happening in the US, or elsewhere.

Typically the discourse on here is to point out EU failure and French pomposity etc because Brexit must be seen to be successful.

It’s Freudian.

It's just the news coming out of the EU. You're free to point out EU successes if you so wish.

I have a day job.

But you don’t need to have a PhD in media studies to understand that there are certain narratives in the U.K. which are pushed eagerly.

Every country has their own set.

I'm not quite sure how an article about how French must be used in meetings during their temporary presidency is being used as evidence that Brexit is a success. I think it says more about the French.

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

There’s a hidden hypocrisy in France’s forlorn and doomed attempt to regain linguistic supremacy. They say they are fighting English ‘for the sake of all the other languages’, ‘to preserve multilingualism, the linguistic diversity of the world’, yada yada. But when other countries with other languages say, in response, ‘great, can we have more official languages in the EU, not just English French and German’, or ‘how about having several working languages in the ECJ, not just French’, the French respond with horror. ‘No, French is a truly great language’, it’s unique status must be preserved’.

This has actually happened. eg Italy made these points, and then expressed deep irritation at the French

Jeff Bezos and brother to fly to space in Blue Origin flight

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Any thoughts on allowing full attendances at weddings from 21 June? That is the really big one but has hardly been discussed. A bride friend has to pay her final deposit this week and she's still in the dark thanks to the government's vacillation.

Vacillation? Wasn't the plan always to decide three weeks after the previous change had been made?

Yes - it was stated previously that the actual decision on the 21st will be announced on the 14th.

That’s a delay. The weddings industry was promised an update on 24 May. Big problems coming if the government delay…

I'm asking who promised it. I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything, but it might be the keywords I am using.

Trivially google-able. It’s amazing on here how many posters leap to the government’s defence without checking…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-major-lockdown-weddings-updates-24125231

That was changed back in mid-May, I thought?

Exactly – vacillation – the government has delayed its decision, which is my point.

I was just surprised that since the date for the decision had been moved to the 14th several weeks ago, that anyone was expecting anything before that date.

You just don't get it do you? She is on her third postponement and was promised a decision by 24 May. Now she has to wait until 14 June – just a few days before her wedding is due to take place.

Not even sure why you are defending this vacillation by a frit, irrational government.

To be honest, having it almost immediately after (or before?) the date planned for the final relaxation might have been a bit premature/optimistic. Several months after might have been more appropriate.

Jesus wept. Do you excuse everything? She postponed it in the autumn, long before the road map even existed…

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

We’re out of it now, so it’s none of our business.
Frankly I respect the French for defending and promoting their culture.

We're allowed to comment on it, aren't we? Just like how we can comment on what is happening in the US, or elsewhere.

Typically the discourse on here is to point out EU failure and French pomposity etc because Brexit must be seen to be successful.

It’s Freudian.

It's just the news coming out of the EU. You're free to point out EU successes if you so wish.

I have a day job.

But you don’t need to have a PhD in media studies to understand that there are certain narratives in the U.K. which are pushed eagerly.

Every country has their own set.

I'm not quite sure how an article about how French must be used in meetings during their temporary presidency is being used as evidence that Brexit is a success. I think it says more about the French.

Because the French are such pompous silly-billies we are better off away from their nonsensical cultural promotion schemes.

Something like that, anyway.

No 10 hinted that aid spending could exceed the downgraded target of 0.5% of gross national income when the donation of coronavirus vaccines is taken into account. As PA Media reports, the PM’s spokesman said: “You can expect the PM to set out more details at the G7 this week on the UK’s plans to share surplus doses with developing countries.” Asked if it would be on top of the existing aid budget, the spokesman said: “The £10bn has been largely allocated in the spending plans already set out with regards to ODA funding, but I’m not going to jump ahead of what the PM might say later this week with regards to the commitment.”

This of course is where Team Boris are crap at politics....this was the obvious fudge to do from the start. It is something Blair / Brown would have done in a heart beat.

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

On bad days I feel similarly, but I don’t blame Muslim influence - indeed, I don’t feel any sense of that whatsoever. Nor do I see any reverses in sexual freedom.

No, my issue is an erosion of civil liberties, a reduction in freedom of speech (whether from woke or other reasons), and an undermining of our democratic systems by money.

If we are not prepared to defend our liberties we will owe them, and at the end of the day it’s those liberties and democratic values which distinguish us from China.

Islam is definitely one factor (amongst many)

One inarguable example. We now have a de facto blasphemy law - a huge reversal of progressive, Enlightenment values. This is indisputable. Since the Rushdie affair, and in light of many other hideous events since, it’s become clear you can’t ‘insult’, ridicule, mock or even lightly caricature Islam. It might get you killed, and the spineless state will do very little to protect you

That’s a blasphemy law. And it’s a capital crime. Simple as.

Stocky said:

Monkeys said:

Jonathan said:

DougSeal said:

A mere 20 years ago. 9 years later...

It appears to still be dead. Populism filled the void and took over the Tory party.

Why do people think Boris and co are populists? I don't get it.

Because they are. See Gove's "people have had enough of experts" comment.

The government is using social media, trad media, focus groups and polling to establish what most people want and government policy follows this. Populism is, then, rule by the low-information masses; government by the ignorant, if you like.

Populism is, therefore, necessarily disconnected from the underlying ideology that political parties should have, and up to now have had.

I despise populism. Ideology gets a bad rap. And a populist government, especially when led by a leader who is generally liked, is virtually impossible to dislodge.

It's funny how the Guardianista set used to complain about large swathes of the electorate not getting involved, until they did, and it became "not like that!"

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

There’s a hidden hypocrisy in France’s forlorn and doomed attempt to regain linguistic supremacy. They say they are fighting English ‘for the sake of all the other languages’, ‘to preserve multilingualism, the linguistic diversity of the world’, yada yada. But when other countries with other languages say, in response, ‘great, can we have more official languages in the EU, not just English French and German’, or ‘how about having several working languages in the ECJ, not just French’, the French respond with horror. ‘No, French is a truly great language’, it’s unique status must be preserved’.

This has actually happened. eg Italy made these points, and then expressed deep irritation at the French

Macron went around Africa telling them that if they had more belief, French could become the global language.

And why not, indeed?
It is after all, the lingua franca for much of Africa.

And the lingua franca for Europe is English, so if the French just believe harder in its adoption, they too could speak the global language.

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lib Dems going hard on anti-development to try and win Chesham & Amersham by-elex. Quote just out: "Tory plans will allow developers to tarmac over greenbelt sites across the Chilterns without local people having any say, risking irreversible damage to the local environment."

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1401871936767021064?s=20

It is true that Tory plans largely involve further emasculation of local planning power.

Supposedly. How are you supposed to rule by edict when idiot councillors in the enemy parties (Labour, LibDem, Conservative) keep doing stupid things? As with Thatcher before, better to emasculate local government by smashing it into pieces that no longer work so that people will blame the people left running the unworkable pieces.

This is exactly what has happened.

Osborne ripped money out of local government (which was already underpowered and underfunded) and now Blue Wall voters are blaming their Labour councils.

That’s part of the issue, anyway.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lib Dems going hard on anti-development to try and win Chesham & Amersham by-elex. Quote just out: "Tory plans will allow developers to tarmac over greenbelt sites across the Chilterns without local people having any say, risking irreversible damage to the local environment."

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1401871936767021064?s=20

LibDems are the home of Nimbyism.

Lib Dems are the opposition to Tory centralised dictatorship. You Tories always misinterpret everything. One supposes deliberately.

Stocky said:

MikeSmithson said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

Hpw do you define "woke" ?

To be awake to structural racism, used as a derogatory term against those who are (proponents say) insufficiently awoken to racial injustice.

Woke individuals probably amount to under 1% of the population yet punch well above their weight by using abuse and bullying tactics via social media and by occupying in some cases position of influence and power, especially in the public sector and universities.

Always strongly left wing, often outright socialist (in the proper sense of the word), woke activists see everything – everything - through the lens of structural racism, despite living in a liberal democracy which by definition prevents structural racism. They see it everywhere, like the boy seeing ghosts in The Sixth Sense.

It is a psychological state. A delusion not founded on logic, rationality and fact. It is strongly connected to post-modernism.

It is, in essence, an illiberal movement. An outright attack on the freedoms in a liberal democracy that we take (took) for granted.

It is regrettable IMO that the definition has massively been broadened and distorted to mean "anything left wing" which is not correct and does a disservice to those of us who argue against and are appalled by the original "woke" meaning.

12% of the public consider themselves to be woke according to YouGov. 23% consider themselves not woke. 7% don't know. 59% don't know what woke means. I am in the 12%.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

I am trying to think of a Muslim immigrant who exercises a significant cultural influence, positive or negative, and I can't think of one. Boris Johnson was born abroad and has a partly Muslim heritage, I think he's the closest I can come up with. Who do you have in mind?
What colour are you painting your room?

As I say below, see our de facto blasphemy law. You cannot mock Islam. Where did that come from?

Update: the Speaker will reveal his decision on whether to allow the Mitchell amendment with a statement in the chamber at 3.30pm.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1401887759200145410

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

We’re out of it now, so it’s none of our business.
Frankly I respect the French for defending and promoting their culture.

We're allowed to comment on it, aren't we? Just like how we can comment on what is happening in the US, or elsewhere.

Typically the discourse on here is to point out EU failure and French pomposity etc because Brexit must be seen to be successful.

It’s Freudian.

It's just the news coming out of the EU. You're free to point out EU successes if you so wish.

I have a day job.

But you don’t need to have a PhD in media studies to understand that there are certain narratives in the U.K. which are pushed eagerly.

Every country has their own set.

I'm not quite sure how an article about how French must be used in meetings during their temporary presidency is being used as evidence that Brexit is a success. I think it says more about the French.

Because the French are such pompous silly-billies we are better off away from their nonsensical cultural promotion schemes.

Something like that, anyway.

I think that is the argument. It overlooks the obvious irony that those that drove Brexit are pompous silly-billies and are just as stupid and irrational as their chauvinist French counterparts.

FrancisUrquhart said:

No 10 hinted that aid spending could exceed the downgraded target of 0.5% of gross national income when the donation of coronavirus vaccines is taken into account. As PA Media reports, the PM’s spokesman said: “You can expect the PM to set out more details at the G7 this week on the UK’s plans to share surplus doses with developing countries.” Asked if it would be on top of the existing aid budget, the spokesman said: “The £10bn has been largely allocated in the spending plans already set out with regards to ODA funding, but I’m not going to jump ahead of what the PM might say later this week with regards to the commitment.”

This of course is where Team Boris are crap at politics....this was the obvious fudge to do from the start. It is something Blair / Brown would have done in a heart beat.

Yes. What India needs right now isn't regional development project cash, its the vaccine. "Spend" the money spreading pox vaccines, thus giving the world what it acutely needs right now, thus speeding up the point where we will able to travel more freely.

isam said:

Had my jab Thursday afternoon, passed out in the middle of the night 10 hours later - lucky I didnt hit my head on the way down as I was on my way to the medicine cupboard in the kitchen to get paracetamol. In bed all day Friday, went for a short bike ride Sat and was absolutely knackered, laid on the sofa all day yesterday, and today. In bed w no vino by 10pm, unheard of. Had to get the parents round to look after the toddler.

Just did some keepy uppies in the back garden and was out of breath as if I’d run 5k. Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Very interesting. Would also be interesting (although maybe with high stakes) to do a control trial whereby one of you has the vaccine and the other is given the virus and then see what happens.

Hope you make a quick full recovery.

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

There’s a hidden hypocrisy in France’s forlorn and doomed attempt to regain linguistic supremacy. They say they are fighting English ‘for the sake of all the other languages’, ‘to preserve multilingualism, the linguistic diversity of the world’, yada yada. But when other countries with other languages say, in response, ‘great, can we have more official languages in the EU, not just English French and German’, or ‘how about having several working languages in the ECJ, not just French’, the French respond with horror. ‘No, French is a truly great language’, it’s unique status must be preserved’.

This has actually happened. eg Italy made these points, and then expressed deep irritation at the French

Macron went around Africa telling them that if they had more belief, French could become the global language.

And why not, indeed?
It is after all, the lingua franca for much of Africa.

And the lingua franca for Europe is English, so if the French just believe harder in its adoption, they too could speak the global language.

Are you referring to Mandarin?

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

MattW said:

This will be fun:

Seven months before taking over the EU’s rotating Council presidency, the French government is mulling plans to revive the declining use and visibility of la langue de Molière.

The French government is earmarking money to offer more French classes to EU civil servants. Officials are contemplating hosting French-language debates featuring the country’s crème de la crème.

And then there are the meetings.

During the country’s presidency, French diplomats said all key meetings of the Council of the EU will be conducted in French (with translations available). Notes and minutes will be French-first. Even preparatory meetings will be conducted in French.

https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language-great-again-eu-presidency/

There’s a hidden hypocrisy in France’s forlorn and doomed attempt to regain linguistic supremacy. They say they are fighting English ‘for the sake of all the other languages’, ‘to preserve multilingualism, the linguistic diversity of the world’, yada yada. But when other countries with other languages say, in response, ‘great, can we have more official languages in the EU, not just English French and German’, or ‘how about having several working languages in the ECJ, not just French’, the French respond with horror. ‘No, French is a truly great language’, it’s unique status must be preserved’.

This has actually happened. eg Italy made these points, and then expressed deep irritation at the French

Macron went around Africa telling them that if they had more belief, French could become the global language.

And why not, indeed?
It is after all, the lingua franca for much of Africa.

And the lingua franca for Europe is English, so if the French just believe harder in its adoption, they too could speak the global language.

I’m not sure what your point is.
Why shouldn’t France promote French?
Or Germany, German?

I get that France is pushing uphill somewhat, but they might as well try.

Are you aware of the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon? The promotion of French can have bloody consequences.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stocky said:

MikeSmithson said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

Hpw do you define "woke" ?

To be awake to structural racism, used as a derogatory term against those who are (proponents say) insufficiently awoken to racial injustice.

Woke individuals probably amount to under 1% of the population yet punch well above their weight by using abuse and bullying tactics via social media and by occupying in some cases position of influence and power, especially in the public sector and universities.

Always strongly left wing, often outright socialist (in the proper sense of the word), woke activists see everything – everything - through the lens of structural racism, despite living in a liberal democracy which by definition prevents structural racism. They see it everywhere, like the boy seeing ghosts in The Sixth Sense.

It is a psychological state. A delusion not founded on logic, rationality and fact. It is strongly connected to post-modernism.

It is, in essence, an illiberal movement. An outright attack on the freedoms in a liberal democracy that we take (took) for granted.

It is regrettable IMO that the definition has massively been broadened and distorted to mean "anything left wing" which is not correct and does a disservice to those of us who argue against and are appalled by the original "woke" meaning.

12% of the public consider themselves to be woke according to YouGov. 23% consider themselves not woke. 7% don't know. 59% don't know what woke means. I am in the 12%.

Some people might interpret that as saying I, a few amongst many, am able accurately to divine unconscious racism when I see it whereas the broad mass of people have no such insight and hence, by their very response to this survey, may very well be unconsciously racist themselves.

isam said:

Had my jab Thursday afternoon, passed out in the middle of the night 12 hours later - lucky I didnt hit my head on the way down as I was on my way to the medicine cupboard in the kitchen to get paracetamol. In bed all day Friday, went for a short bike ride Sat and was absolutely knackered, laid on the sofa all day yesterday, and today. In bed w no vino by 10pm, unheard of. Had to get the parents round to look after the toddler.

Just did some keepy uppies in the back garden and was out of breath as if I’d run 5k. Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Which one did you get

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Had my jab Thursday afternoon, passed out in the middle of the night 10 hours later - lucky I didnt hit my head on the way down as I was on my way to the medicine cupboard in the kitchen to get paracetamol. In bed all day Friday, went for a short bike ride Sat and was absolutely knackered, laid on the sofa all day yesterday, and today. In bed w no vino by 10pm, unheard of. Had to get the parents round to look after the toddler.

Just did some keepy uppies in the back garden and was out of breath as if I’d run 5k. Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Very interesting. Would also be interesting (although maybe with high stakes) to do a control trial whereby one of you has the vaccine and the other is given the virus and then see what happens.

Hope you make a quick full recovery.

I guess most of us are very happy to be vaccinated knowing that we are far less likely to be part of a chain of infection that ends up getting people killed, even if it costs us a couple of days of feeling shitty that we might have avoided by refusing it.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Fishing said:

Interesting stuff. How many sets of proposed new boundaries is that since the last national changes? I've lost count.

I wonder if this lot will get implemented?

I'm still sorry we haven't slimmed our bloated Lower House. The Americans manage with 435.

Once you factor in state and local government you would be hard pressed to make the claim that the US has a slimmed down political system. UK MPs have a huge caseload owing to our centralised system of government (at least in England).

They are so overworked that 112 of them manage to have second jobs.

I suspect that an MP for a wealthy shire constituency probably has little casework and hence some free time to devote to a sideline, whereas an MP for an impoverished inner city seat is likely working flat out on casework. Would be interested to see the party breakdown, I suspect more Tory MPs have second jobs (but stand to be corrected).

It was a Telegraph survey that said 180 (not 112 - I was wrong). 112 were Conservatives. That was slightly but not hugely more than the Conservative share of seats in the 2010 Parliament, but if you eliminate ministers it is considerably more.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/mp-second-jobs/

Gardenwalker said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lib Dems going hard on anti-development to try and win Chesham & Amersham by-elex. Quote just out: "Tory plans will allow developers to tarmac over greenbelt sites across the Chilterns without local people having any say, risking irreversible damage to the local environment."

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1401871936767021064?s=20

It is true that Tory plans largely involve further emasculation of local planning power.

Supposedly. How are you supposed to rule by edict when idiot councillors in the enemy parties (Labour, LibDem, Conservative) keep doing stupid things? As with Thatcher before, better to emasculate local government by smashing it into pieces that no longer work so that people will blame the people left running the unworkable pieces.

This is exactly what has happened.

Osborne ripped money out of local government (which was already underpowered and underfunded) and now Blue Wall voters are blaming their Labour councils.

That’s part of the issue, anyway.

I remember standing up at an angry public meeting before the 2019 elections talking about crime. The local independents as always threw the blame at Labour. I pointed out that you could elect a 100% Thornaby Independent cohort to the council and literally nothing would change as the council had zero money for their ASB teams and the police a total lack of resources and officers.

Labour were swept away and all 7 seats won by the TIA - who when I left were roundly getting massive abuse from residents having made sweeping promises and done sweet fanny adams to actually change anything.

This is the peril now in places where it is Tory councillors who have been elected. Their government has no interest in their communities or their issues or in funding either local government or local services. There is only so much you can blame the last Labour council before you have to actually deliver - which they can't.

…

Scott_xP said:

isam said:

Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Ummm, I don't think that's how vaccines work...

Cowpox inoculates someone against Smallpox. I don't think an adverse reaction to Cowpox means you would have been fine with Smallpox...

No I meant the ‘means your immune system is really good’ line

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Had my jab Thursday afternoon, passed out in the middle of the night 12 hours later - lucky I didnt hit my head on the way down as I was on my way to the medicine cupboard in the kitchen to get paracetamol. In bed all day Friday, went for a short bike ride Sat and was absolutely knackered, laid on the sofa all day yesterday, and today. In bed w no vino by 10pm, unheard of. Had to get the parents round to look after the toddler.

Just did some keepy uppies in the back garden and was out of breath as if I’d run 5k. Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Which one did you get

AZ

Stocky said:

isam said:

Had my jab Thursday afternoon, passed out in the middle of the night 12 hours later - lucky I didnt hit my head on the way down as I was on my way to the medicine cupboard in the kitchen to get paracetamol. In bed all day Friday, went for a short bike ride Sat and was absolutely knackered, laid on the sofa all day yesterday, and today. In bed w no vino by 10pm, unheard of. Had to get the parents round to look after the toddler.

Just did some keepy uppies in the back garden and was out of breath as if I’d run 5k. Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Might I tentatively wonder whether you have brought this upon yourself a teensy bit?? Sorry for asking.

How’d you mean?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stocky said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stocky said:

MikeSmithson said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

Hpw do you define "woke" ?

To be awake to structural racism, used as a derogatory term against those who are (proponents say) insufficiently awoken to racial injustice.

Woke individuals probably amount to under 1% of the population yet punch well above their weight by using abuse and bullying tactics via social media and by occupying in some cases position of influence and power, especially in the public sector and universities.

Always strongly left wing, often outright socialist (in the proper sense of the word), woke activists see everything – everything - through the lens of structural racism, despite living in a liberal democracy which by definition prevents structural racism. They see it everywhere, like the boy seeing ghosts in The Sixth Sense.

It is a psychological state. A delusion not founded on logic, rationality and fact. It is strongly connected to post-modernism.

It is, in essence, an illiberal movement. An outright attack on the freedoms in a liberal democracy that we take (took) for granted.

It is regrettable IMO that the definition has massively been broadened and distorted to mean "anything left wing" which is not correct and does a disservice to those of us who argue against and are appalled by the original "woke" meaning.

12% of the public consider themselves to be woke according to YouGov. 23% consider themselves not woke. 7% don't know. 59% don't know what woke means. I am in the 12%.

I don't believe you. You are far to nice for that.

Perhaps we interpret the term differently. To me it means that you believe that structural racism and white supremacism are real features of our society that need to be challenged and overcome so that everyone has the same opportunities.

It is interesting how different people might interpret a phrase. "Woke" seems to have largely taken over from the phrase "PC" as far as I can tell. I am right of centre, but I always interpreted being "PC" was really about just being polite and understanding of the sensitivities of others. Those further right tend to use it as a term of abuse. Often same people you suspect might say " I am not racist but...." and "yea, and why should "they" get special treatment, it's PC gone mad, that's what it is I tell yer"

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stocky said:

MikeSmithson said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MrEd said:

FPT, I just noticed @Kinablu's well argued post saying why the Right won't win the culture wars. Two things that just wanted to highlight:

1. It's interesting that Kinablu's view is they see a victory for the Right in the culture wars as meaning we get such delights as mandatory statues to slave traders and so on. I can't speak for all but I would see a "victory" as meaning that all are equal and treated equally, and that we are viewed as individuals with our thoughts and ideas, and not that we are pigeon-holed into blocks that are supposed to think the same way, talk the same way etc based on our skin colour, secuality etc.

2. The idea that the advance of "progressive" ideas is always inevitable is also wrong. The best example of that is the promotion of Adult-Child relationships in the 1970s by the likes of PIE and their supporters. For the 1970s, "wokesters", it was the equivalent of the gender identity arguments of today. Needless to say, the former argument doesn't look so great 40+ years on.

I would say that most progressive people would sign up wholeheartedly to your number 1 (maybe not all, but then progressives like conservatives are not a monolith). It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter debate. Progressives say that Black Lives Matter because they think that all lives matter and they want to highlight the injustices that mean that right now some lives matter more than others. They interpret people saying All Lives Matter as an effort to downplay those injustices. Some people who say All Lives Matter may not be doing that, but some certainly are.
On 2 I would agree. You only need to compare Weimar and Nazi Germany to see that history is not monotonic. Hopefully progressive ideals will win in the end but only if we fight for them.

Progressive ‘ideals’ really aren’t *winning*. I wish they were in many respects


The West has stopped advancing, for many reasons, just one is the influence of Muslim immigrants on our culture, which is now palpable. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are not ‘progressive’, their sinister, relentless focus on skin pigmentation, which apparently trumps all else, would delight any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The progress in sexual freedom is arguably in reverse, as a new Puritanism takes over, meanwhile those who once fought for women’s rights now fight bitterly about a miniature issue, trans rights, in way that speaks firmly of Decadence and Decline

Meanwhile across the world the rising power, and civilisation, is China, anti-democratic, patriarchal, tinged with racial supremacism. It supersedes the West, our values are eclipsed

This is Radio Jeremiad, broadcasting lamentations from my half painted bedroom.

Hpw do you define "woke" ?

To be awake to structural racism, used as a derogatory term against those who are (proponents say) insufficiently awoken to racial injustice.

Woke individuals probably amount to under 1% of the population yet punch well above their weight by using abuse and bullying tactics via social media and by occupying in some cases position of influence and power, especially in the public sector and universities.

Always strongly left wing, often outright socialist (in the proper sense of the word), woke activists see everything – everything - through the lens of structural racism, despite living in a liberal democracy which by definition prevents structural racism. They see it everywhere, like the boy seeing ghosts in The Sixth Sense.

It is a psychological state. A delusion not founded on logic, rationality and fact. It is strongly connected to post-modernism.

It is, in essence, an illiberal movement. An outright attack on the freedoms in a liberal democracy that we take (took) for granted.

It is regrettable IMO that the definition has massively been broadened and distorted to mean "anything left wing" which is not correct and does a disservice to those of us who argue against and are appalled by the original "woke" meaning.

12% of the public consider themselves to be woke according to YouGov. 23% consider themselves not woke. 7% don't know. 59% don't know what woke means. I am in the 12%.

Some people might interpret that as saying I, a few amongst many, am able accurately to divine unconscious racism when I see it whereas the broad mass of people have no such insight and hence, by their very response to this survey, may very well be unconsciously racist themselves.

Anyone who expresses an opinion on any subject is implicitly saying that they are right and people who disagree with them are wrong. I think you're being a bit of a Snowflake if you start reading more into it than that, to be honest. Being woke I will refrain from suggesting that you should man up.

LOL thank you for your understanding.

And yes of course there is disagreeing but the difficulty of the woke debate is that it is often framed in such terms so that "being woke" means to be against racism, while not being woke means to be for racism.

But perhaps you could give us your explanation so we have a definitive understanding.

isam said:

…

Scott_xP said:

isam said:

Apparently this reaction is good because it means my immune system is functioning, but if that’s the case, wasn’t I unlikely to catch it anyway? Beginning to wish I hadn’t bothered

Ummm, I don't think that's how vaccines work...

Cowpox inoculates someone against Smallpox. I don't think an adverse reaction to Cowpox means you would have been fine with Smallpox...

No I meant the ‘means your immune system is really good’ line

Highly tuned machine, right?