Howdy, Stranger!

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

The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com

2456789

Comments

  • Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616
    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,198
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.

    Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail

    Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.

    But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader

    The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
    And that's the point.

    If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.

    When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.

    And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
    But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)

    Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection

    If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
    Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
  • tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,061
    .
    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", ....
    It does.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Eh, in some age groups over half the population have used Tinder? So yes it does sound very much like women shouldn't dress like that.

    On the practicalities of it, on first impressions I am unconvinced she was being specifically targeted, it is not particularly unusual for an attractive woman to get 1000+ matches, and users have limited control over who they can see and tend to spend less than a second making a judgment so are unlikely to have made the connection between her and the protest.

    If it was 50 out of 100 matches then obviously they are somehow targeting her. If it was 50 out 2500 matches then probably not.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    Oh, you left that bit out, details?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,204

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    They should get back to their day jobs - arresting people wearing loud clothes in built up areas....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724
    Nigelb said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", ....
    It does.
    Oh well, if women want to go Tinder that's their business.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480
    edited October 6

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    The Wiktionary article I shared references the King James Bible, and Shakespeare.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    Oh, you left that bit out, details?
    Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.

    It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.

    The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,061
    #Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe
    via Belarus and Poland by 70%
    and via Ukraine by 20%
    Since. Last. Week.
    These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move.

    https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,061

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    The Wiktionary article I shared references the King James Bible, and Shakespeare.
    Everyone knows Shakespeare couldn't spell.
    And made words up. :smile:
  • Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    The Wiktionary article I shared references the King James Bible, and Shakespeare.
    Yah, I was just referencing it to use in the legal system.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    Oh, you left that bit out, details?
    Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.

    It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.

    The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
    If they are all/mostly coppers, and it was organised (rather than coincidental), then they should all be sacked.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.

    Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail

    Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.

    But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader

    The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
    And that's the point.

    If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.

    When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.

    And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
    But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)

    Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection

    If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
    Charisma trumps all. Trump himself, Arnie, Reagan, and now Boris all learned their craft on the small or big screen.
    It really does. And it’s worth noting that ‘having charisma’ does not, of itself, make a leader a charlatan or a fraud. In fact a big dash of charisma can make you a great leader, because people will follow you, and you get things done

    There are lots of awful autocrats who had charisma. Gadaffi, Castro, even Hitler, god help us

    But Churchill also had charisma. So did Thatcher, in a very different way. Abraham Lincoln?

    Then you get leaders with charisma who do little with it. Blair, JFK (in the latter case not his own fault)

    Boris definitely had it. The first UK PM since Blair with the gift. We wait to see if he will use it well

    This is interesting on the power of the Boris brand. People queueing 5 hours to see his speech today

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/boris-johnson-devotees-queue-for-hours-for-leaders-conference-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other





  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,754

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    I think you're being deliberately obtuse. There's no contradiction in thinking that the short-term 'problems' caused by correcting a structural imbalance are no problem.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    Oh, you left that bit out, details?
    Was conscious of not violating copyright of The Times who get protective of that.

    It appears one copper may have seen her profile and sent it to his colleagues.

    The force confirmed that it had received the pre-action letter from Stevenson’s lawyers which was being dealt with by its legal team, but would not comment any further.
    If they are all/mostly coppers, and it was organised (rather than coincidental), then they should all be sacked.
    I think that's what the pre-action letter might be going for.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,216

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.

    That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.

    Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.

    Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    edited October 6
    Nigelb said:

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    The Wiktionary article I shared references the King James Bible, and Shakespeare.
    Everyone knows Shakespeare couldn't spell.
    And made words up. :smile:
    [deleted as irrelevant to etymology]
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,887
    edited October 6
    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    My point this morning:

    Boris: Brexit is not responsible for shortages, supply issues, mass pigocide, etc
    Also Boris: The economy is experiencing stresses and strains which you'd expect from Brexit and is part of our Grand Plan.
    This is the week Brexit finally jumped the shark. But as we know soap operas can stagger on for several seasons long past the point where they make any sense at all.

    Expect plenty more of this stuff from Johnson. It's all he's got but he's safe. It will be enough to keep the 40% happy and no-one else can out-bluster him.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,467

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.

    Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail

    Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.

    But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader

    The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
    And that's the point.

    If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.

    When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.

    And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
    But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)

    Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection

    If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
    Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
    Trump is exactly the same phenomenon. Worse though, because his vision is far darker than Johnson's. I view Johnson as a threat to good government. Trump is a threat to democracy itself.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,980
    Nigelb said:

    #Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe
    via Belarus and Poland by 70%
    and via Ukraine by 20%
    Since. Last. Week.
    These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move.

    https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882

    As some of us have been saying for weeks. Putin is playing games with Europe’s gas supply, just because he can. He’s showing Germany who’s now in charge.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/

    In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003
    edited October 6

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,204

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,994
    edited October 6
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    Quite so. Tinder is huge - all the young single women I know use it. Without any bother. This sounds like a pile-on by the police, grotesque bullying; and if so, they should be identified and disciplined.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
    Babies aged 3-4 don't normally have teething problems.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    We shall no doubt see if there is further investigation. I would put precisely nothing beyond the police right now.

    But your reaction to there being weirdos and perverts on a well-used dating app is to tell the women to stay off it. Is that the answer?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616
    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    As we get closer to real bits falling off the economy, the delusions seem to be getting stronger.

    It’s actually quite scary.

    Philip T now seems to suggest it is necessary to destroy the economy to save it; yesterday he likened FOM to the trans-atlantic slave trade.
  • Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/

    In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
    See John Lilburne's link and this

    https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/11/is-it-judgment-or-judgement/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480
    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
    Indeed it does. I've been gently trying to suggest since the 2019 campaign that the PM was running against Thatcherism. All her shibboleths are being trashed.
    Am amazed folk still can't see it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    Finally a Tory MP gets it.

    Rising wages are great unless prices rise faster. Inflation matters - it’s about what we can afford and how families make ends meet in a tough month.

    https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1445697113812180992

    Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.

    Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
    Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,552

    On topic SKS couldn't find a gap in a designer jeans shop

    Wasn't it your hero Corbyn who lost heavily in GE2019?
    Why is that relevant
    Because that's why you only won 202 seats.
    It's not but even if it was it is completely irrelevant to Starmer being a useless nonentity.

    Try and mount a defence of SKS without yeah but Corbyn.

    Impossible task?
    Starmer hasn't lost GE2024... yet.
    So you cant.

    Thought not
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    TBF MM was quoting Mr Johnson. Which raises interesting questions as that 40 years covers most of Mrs T's reign, which was 1979 to 1990.
    Indeed it does. I've been gently trying to suggest since the 2019 campaign that the PM was running against Thatcherism. All her shibboleths are being trashed.
    Am amazed folk still can't see it.
    Quite. And we all know what happened before Mrs T. Inflation. Massive inflation.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.

    That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.

    Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.

    Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
    You're spot on right here. The Tories are now the anti- Margaret Party.
    Starmer is continuity Thatcher lite.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    edited October 6

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    As we get closer to real bits falling off the economy, the delusions seem to be getting stronger.

    It’s actually quite scary.

    Philip T now seems to suggest it is necessary to destroy the economy to save it; yesterday he likened FOM to the trans-atlantic slave trade.
    There does seem to be much searching for answers to the economic challenges, with some increasingly desperate ideas getting floated. Personally not convinced there are any great options, although of course some are better than others.

    The best, but least useful now, answer is not to start from here, which is where the King of Brexit has led us to.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/

    In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
    See John Lilburne's link and this

    https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/11/is-it-judgment-or-judgement/
    The British spelling preserves the rule that G can only be soft while preceding an E, I, or Y.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,754
    There was more disappointing economic news Wednesday, as German factory orders, a normally reliable leading indicator of trends in Europe's largest economy, fell 7.7% in August, a sharp slowdown from the 4.9% gain in July.

    https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/european-stock-futures-lower-german-factory-orders-slump-2635833
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.

    Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail

    Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.

    But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader

    The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
    And that's the point.

    If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.

    When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.

    And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
    But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)

    Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection

    If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
    Charisma trumps all. Trump himself, Arnie, Reagan, and now Boris all learned their craft on the small or big screen.
    It really does. And it’s worth noting that ‘having charisma’ does not, of itself, make a leader a charlatan or a fraud. In fact a big dash of charisma can make you a great leader, because people will follow you, and you get things done

    There are lots of awful autocrats who had charisma. Gadaffi, Castro, even Hitler, god help us

    But Churchill also had charisma. So did Thatcher, in a very different way. Abraham Lincoln?

    Then you get leaders with charisma who do little with it. Blair, JFK (in the latter case not his own fault)

    Boris definitely had it. The first UK PM since Blair with the gift. We wait to see if he will use it well

    This is interesting on the power of the Boris brand. People queueing 5 hours to see his speech today

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/boris-johnson-devotees-queue-for-hours-for-leaders-conference-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


    THE CASE FOR MAKING “PERSONALITY” RATINGS A GOOD ELECTORAL INDICATOR

    6/6/2020


    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,254

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.

    Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail

    Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.

    But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader

    The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
    And that's the point.

    If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.

    When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.

    And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
    Does it work well enough for his mostly retired voters?

    The sunny optimism can distract from the complaints of younger workers/sour-faced Trots. It's a strategy to defuse the risk of the old feeling compassion for the young.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    I think you're being deliberately obtuse. There's no contradiction in thinking that the short-term 'problems' caused by correcting a structural imbalance are no problem.
    And that would be fine of that was their argument. "Yes we have shortages now but look at where we are going". Fine. But they are simultaneously denying issues whilst saying the issues are a result of the Brexit transformation. That you cannot blame Brexit for issues (George Eustace on Question Time) and then should welcome the issues as Brexit fixing our economy.

    Its hypocrisy, contradiction, double-speak guff. Decide a line and stick to it.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    WTF? Telling women to avoid Tinder? And not wear short skirts?

    They were obviously intimidating her and it is disgusting. But she should stay off Tinder.
    You're assuming that they are all actual policemen.
    Judging by the Met's response, they are.
    Some people merely say defund the police, you say nuke them? Is that language helpful when the police have a trust issue we all need to rebuild?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 618
    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.

    That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.

    Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.

    Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
    That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.

    Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?

    How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629

    On topic SKS couldn't find a gap in a designer jeans shop

    Wasn't it your hero Corbyn who lost heavily in GE2019?
    Why is that relevant
    Because that's why you only won 202 seats.
    It's not but even if it was it is completely irrelevant to Starmer being a useless nonentity.

    Try and mount a defence of SKS without yeah but Corbyn.

    Impossible task?
    Starmer hasn't lost GE2024... yet.
    So you cant.

    Thought not
    Get back to me if and when SKS loses GE2024.

    It was because Corbyn was a useless nonentity that he lost GE2019.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,754

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,980

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    Indeed. How is that any different to the delivery or taxi driver phoning up their lady customer a few days later, asking her on a date? Apart from the aggregating factors of the uniforms and warrant cards, of course.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Not many Tories on here praising up Boris big speech 😆
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    Alistair said:

    Finally a Tory MP gets it.

    Rising wages are great unless prices rise faster. Inflation matters - it’s about what we can afford and how families make ends meet in a tough month.

    https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1445697113812180992

    Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.

    Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
    Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
    Asset inflation and non asset inflation have diverged massively, which also means people's individual inflation rates will be much more variable than historically. Some are seeing deflation in their costs and rising incomes, others inflation and stable incomes.

    Whilst PT may be pushing the selective use of stats and language beyond the limits of reasonableness, I would not disagree that wage and general price inflation has been too low, and asset inflation too high.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Boris has lived his life on bluff and bluster and wants Britain to do the same. History isn't kind to politicians that govern in that way.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616
    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    gealbhan said:

    Not many Tories on here praising up Boris big speech 😆

    That is unfair, it is afternoon nap time.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,216

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
    No Idea. Perhaps TSE can tell us more about how Tinder works... ;)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,467
    Nice to see Dominic Raab standing up for all the male victims of misogyny, anyway. They truly are the forgotten victims.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Mitterrand certainly.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,591
    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Felipe Gonzalez, Chirac.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    AlistairM said:

    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.

    There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain

    eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
    As always, there is an expert on every topic on PB...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    The issue seems to be that a collective pile-on might have happened - if so, it would count as a conspiracy to breach discipline or general good practice (though not necessarily in the strict legal meanings of the words). That would be much more serious than a single copper or taxi-jockey.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    Leon said:

    AlistairM said:

    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.

    There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain

    eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
    Countdown's about to start on C4 :lol:
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,055
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Mitterrand certainly.
    A lot of French people revere Mitterand, I don’t quite get it. A cunning politician who survived his enemies, is what I see. But maybe it’s just a cultural blindness (on my part).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
    If half the lecturers in the Politics and Law faculty targeted one female student?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548

    Leon said:

    AlistairM said:

    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.

    There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain

    eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
    Countdown's about to start on C4 :lol:
    I was wondering for a moment which of Musk's rockets you meant.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
    Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
    Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
    Also, anything not worth doing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,467
    edited October 6
    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Perhaps reflects FPTP vs proportional systems? You need a broad church party to win under FPTP, with a range of ideologies and policy stances. Perhaps leader charisma plays a bigger part in holding that together than with a narrower, more ideologically coherent, party. Plus what plays well in one culture may not in another. Kohl was a colossal, dominating figure in Germany, and I think exerted a kind of charisma. Germans are wary of overly charismatic leaders, for obvious reasons. Mitterand in France, Berlusconi, as you say (and is seen as a responsible elder statesman these days) were pretty charismatic politicians.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,288

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’

    Very, very silly boys. Brings their employer into disrepute, which is a legitimate disciplinary matter.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
    Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
    Also, anything not worth doing.
    I was taught

    (a) that anythjing worth doing is worth doing well

    and

    (b) 7Ps

    https://military.wikia.org/wiki/7_Ps_(military_adage)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    A Britain created in Boris' own image. That's his vision. Economical with nothing, but the truth. Unreliable, desheveled and self-obsessed. A facade.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    dixiedean said:

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
    And the biggest employer of all would need big tax hikes to pay for any rises. Those tax hikes wont hit the retired client vote so it will be down to high and medium earning workers.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,864
    Nigelb said:

    #Gazprom reduced the gas flow to Europe
    via Belarus and Poland by 70%
    and via Ukraine by 20%
    Since. Last. Week.
    These are official Gazprom figures. Putin is using energy as a weapon, calling the Merkel-Biden bluff, and Germany does NOTHING to counter the move.

    https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1445319900252282882

    It's slightly bizarre, but Putin should perhaps be up for the Nobel Peace Prize* in a few years for averting climate catastrophe by accelerating Europe's switch to renewables :wink:

    *well, if the IPCC can win it...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 542
    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    Alistair said:

    Finally a Tory MP gets it.

    Rising wages are great unless prices rise faster. Inflation matters - it’s about what we can afford and how families make ends meet in a tough month.

    https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1445697113812180992

    Except you're pointedly ignoring TSE the fact that prices have risen faster than wages for decades now.

    Not an issue if you got a mortgage when you were 18 and sold it on to buy a mansion for cash so you don't have to worry about inflation. For families making ends meet though, inflation never went away in the first place.
    Haven't you previously argued over the last 5 years that Inflation was dangerously low and that some Brexit induced inflation would be a good thing?
    Wage and "Consumer" inflation yes.

    House price inflation has been dangerously high.

    We need to reverse that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Mitterrand certainly.
    A lot of French people revere Mitterand, I don’t quite get it. A cunning politician who survived his enemies, is what I see. But maybe it’s just a cultural blindness (on my part).
    They revere him cos he won from the Left. Imagine 35+ years of voting for the losing candidate. That's why he's liked.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    dixiedean said:

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
    I agree with that.

    So if you want workers to get a better salary then you need to be in a position where they can demand a better wage and the businesses and shareholders have no choice but to give that to them.

    That doesn't mean striking, it doesn't mean unions, it means full employment and a competitive labour market. What we have now, we're in that sweet spot.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,548
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
    Ian Paisley?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480
    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
    If half the lecturers in the Politics and Law faculty targeted one female student?
    Yep. That's the kinda thing. Used to happen.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003
    edited October 6
    Leon said:

    AlistairM said:

    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.

    There was some brilliant stuff in that speech carelessly thrown away by his odd, unfortunate tendency to gabble so quickly, like his mouth can’t quite keep up with his brain

    eg I bet this is the first UK PM’s speech in many decades to use the word ‘alembics’
    He speaks to two audiences. Actually three. First the conference audience which adores him and who he can take less seriously; secondly the wider public for whom there must be the obligator Boris Joke and also some serious NHS/levelling up/vaccines soundbites.

    And the third audience is small, it might only be himself, but likely to be some confidantes also, for whom the whole thing is a huge joke that is being perpetrated on the party and the public. Hence the knowing smiles and smirks and as I mentioned earlier, breaking of the fourth wall.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,216
    Off-topic:

    I've never really been into superhero movies or series, although the Marvel films and Agents of Shield were fun.

    But there's a series I've really enjoyed: Stargirl, available on Amazon. The first series was a fairly standard kids-gain-superhero-powers thing. The second series has been brilliant so far, with the kids having to face the consequences of their actions in the first series (taking lives) and a villain who could be good, or could be evil.

    It's well balanced; fun and light at times, and also fairly dramatic at others. I've really enjoyed it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,204

    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    Perhaps reflects FPTP vs proportional systems? You need a broad church party to win under FPTP, with a range of ideologies and policy stances. Perhaps leader charisma plays a bigger part in holding that together than with a narrower, more ideologically coherent, party. Plus what plays well in one culture may not in another. Kohl was a colossal, dominating figure in Germany, and I think exerted a kind of charisma. Germans are wary of overly charismatic leaders, for obvious reasons. Mitterand in France, Berlusconi, as you say (and is seen as a responsible elder statesman these days) were pretty charismatic politicians.
    Kohl was massively charismatic - read up on how he dominated his political rivals and supporters with his personality. He was limited, internationally by the place of West Germany in the scheme of things.

    Merkel used a different kind of charisma, but it was (and is) charisma that she used to dominate German politics.

    Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkosy all used force of personality as their "thing" as well.
  • tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
    She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.

    I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
    Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.

    Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.

    We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.

    Let us hope they don't develop further.
    Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
    Not the government line. Nor yours previously (shortage what shortage).

    Now as I said we are at teething issues. I hope it doesn't progress from there.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 542
    AlistairM said:

    Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.

    The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.

    My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,491
    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
    Is the minimum age on Tinder 16 or 18 ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,204
    dixiedean said:

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
    The Clinton moment will be if big ticket donor switch to the Labour party, in return for promises to create FOM (in effect) by watering down the visa system.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616
    dixiedean said:

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
    That, but I think the issue is that the idea you can wage-rise yourself to prosperity is economic junk, and most everyone serious knows it.

    To hear it from the PM and (a little softer) from the CoE is disturbing. And then, coupled with the increasing news of inflation, it’s adding up to “this is not the Toryism I’ve spent my adult life espousing”.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,375

    Word of the day (again) is ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): one who gives opinions and judgements on matters they know nothing about.

    https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1445722553549561856

    Disappointed she used judgement though rather than judgment.

    Nah, "judgment" is the Yank spelling.

    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/judgement/
    And lawyers' spelling. At least, that is what I remember from the last time it came up here. Judges issue judgments.
    Judgment goes back as far as the 1500/1600s in the English legal system.
    Judgment is ugly, even though the Supreme Court (UK) uses it. If it is acceptable then so is 'pavment' for pavement.

  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.

    A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.

    The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.

    Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.

    “They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.

    “I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.

    “They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-arrested-at-everard-vigil-says-officers-contacted-her-on-tinder-dating-app-mkvbj9xpp

    Did they show her their warrant cards?

    I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
    Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.

    The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.

    Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
    This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:

    If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.

    There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.

    It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
    Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.

    They need sacking
    *If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.

    Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
    As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
    Is the minimum age on Tinder 16 or 18 ?
    18.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,480

    dixiedean said:

    What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.

    It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.

    The press is starting to look a bit hostile.
    The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.

    Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.

    One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises.
    Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
    And the biggest employer of all would need big tax hikes to pay for any rises. Those tax hikes wont hit the retired client vote so it will be down to high and medium earning workers.
    The high pay the government wants doesn't apply to its own employees silly.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 542
    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard

    De Gaulle, obviously

    Gorbachev

    Lech Walesa

    Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel

    I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers

    If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
    Ian Paisley?
    He might bridle at the suggestion he is "non-UK". No, no, no.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    gealbhan said:

    dixiedean said:

    TOPPING said:

    Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.

    And you know what? He'll be right.....

    Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?

    Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
    Because "horrors" aren't happening.

    You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could.
    You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.

    There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
    The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.

    All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.

    And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
    The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.

    True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.

    It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
    MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled.
    So who better than the Tories to sort it out?
    Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
    The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.

    That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.

    Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.

    Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
    That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.

    Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?

    How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
    I advocate for market rate for wages. If wages are going up because we're in a competitive labour market with full employment then that's fantastic. If we have unemployment then wages should go down to get the unemployed into work. Supply and demand.

    If you can tell me when "Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill" promised such a laissez-faire attitude then I'd love to see it.

    If you advocate for laissez-faire attitudes when that means wages going down, then how can you not stick with a laissez-faire attitude when that means wages going up? If you only do it in one direction you're not laissez-faire you're exploiting it one way for your own agenda.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,742
    edited October 6
    A Scottish chemist has won the Nobel Prize. Though David MacMillan works at Princeton, which august institution has picked up its second Nobel Prize in two days.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58814418
This discussion has been closed.