BoJo’s Tories are arguably more vulnerable to the LDs at the next election than LAB – politicalbetti

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

malcolmg said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....

Who is the we?

Michael Gove.

I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.

Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.

Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.

Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.

It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.

The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.

Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.

Gove is however electoral poison - especially for younger age groups.

I'm first in line to be impervious to the charms of the Gover but I'm mildly intrigued by the voters of Surrey Heath; do they back him in spite of his Govieness 'cos he's a Con, or does he have some personal following? He increased his majority every GE from 2005 except interestingly the last one which I suppose was the great efflorescence of English nationalism.

Gove does have his fans - I'm one on a non-political basis. He is a politician who is really interested in doing stuff, and I'm allergic to politicians who just want to BE something. I can well imagine that he'd be a great constituency MP - if I had some personal problem that an MP could help resolve, I would absolutely trust Gove to do the necessary.

He is the nastiest , slimiest , creepy politician in the country. A vile odious little creep.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ridaligo said:

tlg86 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.

So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.

There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.

Here is a 2019 Arsenal payslip for [since moved to Everton] Alex Iwobi.
https://twitter.com/footyawayday/status/1220080879982333952/photo/1

And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.

Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Our farmers are fucked in a free market.

I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

IanB2 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.

I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.

He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.

I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.

Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.

I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.

What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

eek said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.

Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...

'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'

In more cutting off nose to spite face news..

Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.

Cheap electricity doesn’t have to be exported. It can be used domestically to make manufacturing extremely competitive.

You are assuming the energy is cheap - that isn't stated within the article.

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.

NerysHughes said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.

A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.

eek said:

malcolmg said:

eek said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.

Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...

'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'

In more cutting off nose to spite face news..

Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.

Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.

Clearly you weren't thinking - why is he making that suggestion. We currently import electricity from various parts of Europe, they don't have any need for more.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

IanB2 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.

I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.

He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.

I am not an entryist, I have been a Tory almost all my life and a member since from memory either 2003 or 2004. Just after Howard replaced IDS is when I joined, despite not being keen on Howard I wanted a say in the next leadership election and voted for Cameron.

Yes I am in favour of the breakup of the UK, as are a significant amount of English Conservatives. I don't hate rural folk or farmers, I wish them well, I just don't think they should be pandered to with protectionism or taxes any more than British Leyland. Let them compete or fail in a free market - I have confidence in our farmers that they can do better in a free market than you imagine.

I have nothing in common with Trump. You can't find anything and can never name anything that I share in common with Trump. You're just too thick to see the difference.

What gets me is that the philosophical division on display here is at least as deep as the Corbynite/Blairite one but the Tories somehow manage to keep a better lid on it. What’s their secret?

FrancisUrquhart said:

UK says it wants to substantially rewrite Northern Ireland Brexit protocol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

malcolmg said:

Gnud said:

glw said:

StuartDickson said:

eek said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

FPT...

1. Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
   
2. Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
   
3. Russia would not invade Scotland.
   

Iceland is in NATO

Ireland however isn't but this is why we do it https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/why-do-british-jets-protect-irish-airspace/

I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.

The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.

How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?

It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.

If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.

If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.

The UK should take the debt, it would amount to about a 12% rise, so quite serviceable. But if the UK did that what do you think you are going to get in any negotiations?

And what kind of ratings from the agencies? Who would finance a state that came into existence in a proud moment of debt repudiation?

But separatists don't give a toss about any of that. All they want is their "freedom". They know they're better than England any day of the week. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either been brainwashed by fake news from the "London media", or else they're an English b*stard to start with. That's the true mentality of Scottish separatists.

Total fanny baws alert.

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

eek said:

Alistair said:

DougSeal said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.

Tell that to Sweden.

Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..

And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.

There is no deadline.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ridaligo said:

tlg86 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.

So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.

There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.

Here is a 2019 Arsenal payslip for [since moved to Everton] Alex Iwobi.
https://twitter.com/footyawayday/status/1220080879982333952/photo/1

And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.

Assuming it is actually real, he needs to get himself new management!

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Our farmers are fucked in a free market.

I find it astonishing somebody that claims Clarkson's Farm is a marvel - and I agree, great television - seems so disconnected from one of the biggest points Clarkson made, which was that without subsidy he would have gone bust.

I hope you're not talking about me?

I've never watched Clarkson's Farm. I don't know anything about it.

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

UK says it wants to substantially rewrite Northern Ireland Brexit protocol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.

To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cookie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist.
Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.

I voted for the Brexit Party in May 2019 as well!

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cookie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist.
Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.

I voted for the Brexit Party in May 2019 as well!

Didn’t we all?

The Tories got 8.8%, and Farage got 30.5%.

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

UK says it wants to substantially rewrite Northern Ireland Brexit protocol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.

To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times

So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.

ridaligo said:

Mexicanpete said:

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.

Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.

I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.

I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Finance in football is just weird, nothing is what it seems e.g. clubs never actually pay the selling club for a transfer. They pay a third party finance company, who then does separate deals between the selling and buying clubs about how the money will be paid from and to.

ridaligo said:

Mexicanpete said:

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.

Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.

I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.

I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
2m
Boris says it's "common sense" to let people cram into nightclubs for ten weeks before demanding a Covid passport. It's a view.

moonshine said:

malcolmg said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

UK says it wants to substantially rewrite Northern Ireland Brexit protocol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.

To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times

So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.

They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.

Is support for Northern Ireland’s place in the union higher or lower in Scotland than in England? Presumably nationalists such as yourself don’t have a strong view either way?

NerysHughes said:

kinabalu said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.

It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.

He has a vast personal fortune, money he does not need, why not give 50% of that to the poorer people of Manchester if he is that concerned about them? Now that would be good.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The free speech Tories seem very keen on cancelling Rashford because he doesn't say what they want to hear...

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

Voting for somebody is a strange way to destroy them electorally.

It is strange. But it worked.

Theresa May's Tories got single digits in the polls, Theresa May the worst PM in centuries was thrown out in disgrace as a result, and the party got rehabilitated with the public.

Once the party was rehabilitated, protest parties like Farage's were destroyed.

The 2019 European Parliament election was a perfect vehicle to cast a protest vote, since the moment Brexit went ahead all MEPs elected would be removed from office automatically.

ridaligo said:

eek said:

ridaligo said:

NerysHughes said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.

A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.

Indeed ... which is why I have a problem with him using his position to campaign for increased taxes for the likes of me, who don't get paid £10m a year, can't structure how they get paid and can't offset any earnings against expenses (being a poor sap on PAYE). And he's above criticism because he's campaigning for FSMs (while all the time creating Brand Marcus Rashford)? No, he's not and nor should he be - that's what investigative journalist used to be about.

Any evidence to back up your claim that he is avoiding paying tax?

I've got a feeling this argument would be similar to Ken Livingstone having a go at Boris Johnson only to discover that Boris was being paid by the telegraph through PAYE.

I'm not making any such claim. For all I know he is a PL footballer whose entire £10M salary is subject to PAYE. I'm saying PAYE employees cannot avoid paying the taxes that Rashford is campaigning to increase, while earning millions, which is not in doubt.

malcolmg said:

moonshine said:

malcolmg said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

UK says it wants to substantially rewrite Northern Ireland Brexit protocol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

Rewriting the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the Never Happening bucket. Which leaves the the UK Government with the options of tearing it up, which it appears not to be willing to do, or stalling.

To the extent I can detect any strategy at all, it is to be so awkward that the other side gives up. It may work up to a point, But at a huge cost. Firstly in the goodwill that is needed to make the rest of the relationship with the EU work and secondly in the damage the lack of a commitment to a solution will do to Northern Ireland, which is a fragile place at the best of times

So what should the UK government do? Implement the Protocol and make the best of it. Once you eliminate the worse alternatives this is where you end up.

They thought it up and signed up to it so they should get on with it. Will soon be next to no trade between UK and NI in any case, they will use easy option and by in Eire.

Is support for Northern Ireland’s place in the union higher or lower in Scotland than in England? Presumably nationalists such as yourself don’t have a strong view either way?

Well imagine the Orange Lodge adherents will want to keep it and Scotland in the union but they are a dwindling bunch of dinosaurs. I personally would think it better to have a united Ireland but it is up to the people of NI/Eire, just as it should be to the people of Scotland to decide what they want at any time of their choosing when there are 50% + 1 wanting the choice.

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.

I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.

This is the conundrum for the Yes people. They can't be honest.

Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.

However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.

But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.

Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?

Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.

ridaligo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.

Sadly, yes ... but The Spectator should stand its ground, as should other critics of these virtue signallers (i.e. hypocrites). In a democracy, critics perform a vital role, which should not be silenced.

kinabalu said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.

It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cookie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

We've been through this before. Mussolini was a fascist. Franco was a fascist. Farage is politically unlike either. Fascism is a distinct political position; you can't simply label any vaguely right wing party whose views you disagree with as 'fascist.
Nick P suggested a better historical analog to Farage might be Admiral Horthy - I'm not 100% convinced, largely because my knowledge of interwar Hungary is pretty superficial. Though in truth it's hard to compare the Brexit party to anyone from that period.

I voted for the Brexit Party in May 2019 as well!

Didn’t we all?

The Tories got 8.8%, and Farage got 30.5%.

FF43 said:

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

An independent Scotland is perfectly viable and could be successful, but it will be at the expense of our current lifestyle. We should be honest about that.

I think an independent Scotland would want to be part of the Euro. We don't have an embedded alternative.

This is the conundrum for the Yes people. They can't be honest.

Indy will make Scots poorer, certainly for the medium-term at least. I know that, you know that, and they know that.

However polling confirms that many of their supporters don't believe/understand that. Indeed the strength of the SNP position is premised on this lack of understanding.

But being honest about the financial implications means a referendum can't be won.

Hence the unreal debate north of the border though, to be fair, fewer people than ever seem to be engaged with it.

I disagree that the debate is unreal or people are unengaged. A key point that many south of border don't get is that most Scots are nationalists. We're comfortable with our nationality on the whole. The debate is about where Scotland's interest lies. Is it by being independent or as a part of a union (and since Brexit, which union?) Money is a factor, an important one, but not necessarily the biggest for either camp. Nor should it be.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.

I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.

I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.

May is no better than Farage.

Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.

You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.

I got him kicked out of the European Parliament and so humiliated then electorally that he didn't even bother standing in the 2019 General Election, and didn't bother standing candidates against Tories once the Tory Party was rehabiliated.

Farage has been destroyed electorally. Job done.

Once the Tory Party was rehabilitated?

Once the Tory Party morphed into the Brexit Party, is what you mean. That's why Farage didn't stand against them at GE19. He knew they'd nicked all his Hard Leaver Xenophobe vote.

noneoftheabove said:

ridaligo said:

Mexicanpete said:

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.

Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.

I agree with those sentiments. I do approve of Rashford getting paid handsomely for his talent ... market forces.

I don't approve of him becoming a political activist, essentially a multi-millionaire spending other people's money. If he wants to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or whatever, go right ahead ... just don't use it for personal, commercial gain or to agitate for increased taxes for others.

What are your criteria for approval of political activism? The rest of us need to ensure we don't offend.