Howdy, Stranger!

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

Remember this from the 2016 referendum campaign? – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,515

    kamski said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Germany today

    22,000 cases and 411 deaths

    A statistical blip? Or their luck running out?

    Well, hard to know for sure. They're nowhere near as vaccinated (particularly in the East) as France/Spain/Italy/etc., so they're potentially pretty vulnerable.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they had a nasty Autumn in Thuringia/Mecklenerg/etc.
    411 deaths is a huge leap from their "normal", tho their number of daily deaths WAS slowly rising, likewise cases

    As we all know one of the habits of Covid is to seek out countries which have been a *tiny bit smug* about their Covid handling, and give them a spanking. As a lesson. Perhaps now it is Germany's turn
    Having spent nearly three weeks there this year, I don’t think smug is a fair description. It’s the only place I have been where observance of precautions is consistent, and challenged if you forget; in towns and cities I kept coming across free testing points and vaccination stations, with small queues of properly distanced people waiting for them.

    If Germany’s figures do go poor (and a sudden jump in daily deaths is more likely to be random fluctuation since a worsening situation should see a progressive change) the more accurate conclusion is that the new variant is sufficiently contagious that we are now wasting our time with all the precautions.
    Agreed re Germans’ behaviour: conformance to the rules is astounding. Definitely not “smug” as Sean claims. Like most things, they take Covid very seriously.
    Haven't heard Merkel going on about world beating anything. Imagine if Britain had Germany's relatively somewhat better numbers compared to some neighbours, Johnson would be claiming credit every day

    Also Leon's death figures are just wrong.
    Happy to believe you know better based on where you are - I think Leon has the numbers from Worldometer. Is there a suggestion that there has been so data revision? I saw that Germany thinks it has miscounted how many its vaccinated, for instance. Have they dumped a load of historic cases and deaths out on the 7th, and made it look like a spike?
    https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4/page/page_1/

    86 deaths yesterday. Previous days lower I think. Probably worldometer adjusting their shit figures to bring them in line

    On vaccines, I know a few people who are vaccinated unofficially with leftover doses there was no way to record, so could be true.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.

    Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure.
    If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great.
    But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with.
    Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
    My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
    Weren’t you calling for Rashford to ‘shut the fuck up’ a few days ago? Otoh I don’t remember you calling for citizen of nowhere Rupe to butt out of UK politics. Does that mean you’re a hypocrite of the right?
    Yes. I am still of the same view, although more moderate in my language. He wants government spending to increase by £6bn. Great. Get yourself elected on that manifesto.

    I don’t particularly remember calling for Rupert to butt out (although he hasn’t been that active for a decade - it’s James who is more involved now. He was born in London so I assume he’s a British citizen although, TBH, I’ve never asked! But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,060

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him.
    One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.

    He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
    More difficult to attack *successfully*, as evidenced by the pathetic efforts on here.
    I have no anti-him agenda whatever - rather the opposite, given he is more of a thorn in Johnson's side than most - but there is no need to regard him either as stupid, or as a young Gandhi. People like fame and influence for their own sake, and people can build positions outside of party politics with an intention of pivoting into PP later on - examples as diverse as Reagan, Trump, SKS.
    I wouldn’t characterise that as an attack pathetic or otherwise, however ‘Unelected Rashford and Rupe are essentially the same & lefties attacking one & not the other are hypocrites’ would be intellectually pitiful in a ten year old.
    Well, quite. We can all participate in the discourse, and we are all entitled to as much of an audience is prepared to listen to us. Democracy is not just about voting.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,224
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.

    You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
    Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.

    I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.

    Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.

    Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.

    Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
    Passing over the generality of your comments, can I ask you to listen to Return of the Grievous Angel by Gram Parsons before finally giving up? The album if poss, but the title track is the killer.
    Sorry @IshmaelZ I just did. To me it sounded like a cat being strangled. I know its me. If it helps I love the Eagles and they have some Country in their stuff. Everyone to their own taste I guess. As a Scot from that era my wife like the Bay City Rollers, whereas I think they should have been put down at birth, but we live through the difference.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,268
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Lots of reporting that Ireland will lose €2 billion in tax revenue because of an increase in its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15%. In case anyone thinks this is some kind of Laffer curve effect, it’s not. The revenue loss stems from another aspect of the global agreement....

    This will see more sharing of profit-related taxes. For example some of the tax revenue Ireland raises from ads sold in Germany will now go to the German government.


    https://twitter.com/WhelanKarl/status/1446167406129393664?s=20

    Some estimates are much higher than €2bn, I remember seeing some research that it would be much closer to €15bn because companies that use Ireland as their European HQ will redomicile to the UK/Germany and other more relevant countries as governments will assert themselves and say you can't have a 1% revenue generating nation as your tax domicile any longer. That means lots of job movement from Ireland to the rest of Europe.

    I've heard that Apple are looking to make the UK it's new European HQ as it is already the defacto one anyway. It allows them to remove a cost centre in Ireland. Amazon are supposedly looking at UK/Germany split for their European HQ, German for retail and UK for AWS, shifting out of Luxembourg.

    There's going to be a lot more consequences for those countries that exist to allow companies to avoid tax than is currently thought. Ireland in particular is going to lose a lot of high value jobs to the UK and Germany.
    Give Biden a round of applause.
    Whilst we are talking about greedy tech companies. Yesterday people were bemoaning Intel rejecting the UK for investment in semiconductor fabs in favour of the EU. It was due to Brexit say Intel, but coincidentally Intel are looking for an €8 billion subsidy for the honour of hosting these fabs that will make Intel many, many billions of dollars profit.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    The difference is that Rashford is using his soft power to speak up for people who don't have a voice, children and poor children especially. Murdoch has always wielded his power solely for personal profit.
    Ok. So the difference is that you approve of Rashford and disapprove of Murdoch?
    I approve of people doing things I think are worthy of approval, and disapprove of people doing things I think are worthy of disapproval. I know this is a highly unique kind of position to have, especially on an Internet site where people spend most of their time expressing approval or disapproval of things, so I can only apologise for this shocking breach of protocol.
    Yes but you are saying it is *legitimate* for one and *illegitimate* for the other
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 872
    Petrol anecdote.

    Today is my first day after 10 days isolation due to Covid. Our local village petrol station had a fuel delivery overnight and was due to open at 7.30am. I got there for 7.20am and the queue was going down the road but got some after 15 minutes of waiting. The queue now when my wife went to fill up was 5 cars.

    However, it seems that people are coming a long way to fill up. It is still 135p/litre there compared to everywhere else 10p/litre more expensive.

    They were stating that in normal times their delivery of fuel would last a week. Now it lasts 1.5 days. This still seems to align with people filling up with more than they would normally AND/OR people coming from further away to fill up.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
    It must be a nice fuzzy feeling from being the darling of the left/media though
    I'd have thought Charles that given how you often bang on about all the good works your family have done over the centuries you'd appreciate someone doing something because they feel it is the right thing to do.

    Or does that only apply to the landed gentry sharing their benevolence with oiks?
    I agree with you - personal gain doesn’t have to be monetary.

    I suspect Marcus rather enjoys having an impact and good for him. But that’s personal gain.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.

    Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure.
    If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great.
    But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with.
    Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
    My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
    I was kind-of agreeing with you. Whilst use of such pressure is fine if you agree with cause, it can be slightly more troublesome if you do not.
    I’m relaxed about a celebrity pushing one cause… when it begins to become multiple causes from a consistent political perspective it is more troubling
    What's the difference between Rashford talking about poverty (especially the child poverty he himself experienced) and Price Charles talking about Ecology 20 years before it became the in thing.

    Both are using their position to push a viewpoint that they believe is important and the press belief is significant enough that their combined fame and interests is important enough to make the news.
    That’s a fair comparison - Prince Charles needs to be careful (and in fairness he has been so more recently)

    But I don’t believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that he ever publicly says “this government is doing X - it should stop doing that and do Y instead). It’s rather “we need to be worried about climate change”
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    The difference is that Rashford is using his soft power to speak up for people who don't have a voice, children and poor children especially. Murdoch has always wielded his power solely for personal profit.
    Ok. So the difference is that you approve of Rashford and disapprove of Murdoch?
    I approve of people doing things I think are worthy of approval, and disapprove of people doing things I think are worthy of disapproval. I know this is a highly unique kind of position to have, especially on an Internet site where people spend most of their time expressing approval or disapproval of things, so I can only apologise for this shocking breach of protocol.
    Yes but you are saying it is *legitimate* for one and *illegitimate* for the other
    Actually I don't think I said that at all.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    NEW THREAD
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,884
    Newcastle fan Sam Fender took part in the celebrations following news of the club takeover yesterday.

    He told #BBCBreakfast he’s a little worse for wear this morning.

    https://bbc.in/3AnsGrS


    https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1446390041270444044?s=20
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,527

    I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.

    Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.

    The type of campaigner/volunteer i respect the most is one who gives up large chunks of their life/fortune to help people. If Rashford spent his time getting premier league players to give up 20% of their incredible incomes and then used this money to directly help those less fortunate then I would think he was great. What he does is use is notiriety to force the Government to borrow even more money to increase benefits. I don't see how that makes him a national treasure. He lives a life of incredible luxury and will never have to work a day in his life, whilst preaching on how the average taxpayer should fund more benefit rises. How about giving away one of his many cars to someone without a car? He could fund the building of a YMCA hostel in Manchester for those without a home.
    First result on Google: Rashford has given £20m to charity.

    https://www.givemesport.com/1725339-marcus-rashford-man-utd-star-has-donated-125-of-his-personal-wealth-to-charities

    Looking forward to @NerysHughes becoming Rashford's biggest fan now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,174
    boulay said:

    I don’t have any problem with Marcus Rashford pushing his campaign using his celebrity at all. I’m not sure I agree with the campaign and feel he is somewhat manipulated and a mouthpiece for a movement behind him but it’s not the end of the world.

    What I do have a problem with is that if a footballer came out with views that aren’t shared by the loudest voices on social media and certain areas of the media then I can see a pile-on.

    I seem to recall when Frank Lampard made the hideous admission he was a Tory he was vilified by certain sections of the noisier righteous people in the country.

    I think that anyone who lauds Marcus Rashford for using his public voice to try and change things in line with his and his circle’s beliefs should also be totally accepting of other public personalities freely espousing their views on politics.

    Absolutely correct of course.

    Good luck with that one. Free speech? For people you don't agree with? Are you mad.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,716
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.

    You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
    Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.

    I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.

    Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.

    Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.

    Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
    Passing over the generality of your comments, can I ask you to listen to Return of the Grievous Angel by Gram Parsons before finally giving up? The album if poss, but the title track is the killer.
    Johnny Cash. That is all.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 872
    A large area of New Zealand has been put into tighter restrictions because one woman went there with Covid.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-alert-level-3-for-northland-after-auckland-woman-with-covid-visited-region/I6BEZVBJGSMDCSMWHOP4FSVCO4/

    We've had more Covid in my house in the last week than has caused this level of restriction. I do wonder how NZ is going to break out of the habit of using these lockdowns?

    NZ had 44 cases which is obviously very low compared to the UK but is quite high for them and has been going up in recent days. They have brought the cases down before. I wonder if lockdown fatigue may stop them doing it this time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.

    Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.

    Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
    Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
    There's a place for both.

    I see Rule Brittania as a defiant shout of freedom and expression of independence and self-belief as a nation, and it's rather fun.

    It don't see it as a Trojan Horse for wanting to make China British, or endorsing slavery, and I find those that think that way rather ludicrous.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 54,884
    As it seems Laschet's days are numbered as leader of the CDU, NZZ has a summary of the contenders to succeed him...

    7 white men
    Aged 41, 44, 46, 48, 53, 56, 65
    5 of them from Nordrhein-Westfalen


    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1446406737670594578?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 18,826
    algarkirk said:

    boulay said:

    I don’t have any problem with Marcus Rashford pushing his campaign using his celebrity at all. I’m not sure I agree with the campaign and feel he is somewhat manipulated and a mouthpiece for a movement behind him but it’s not the end of the world.

    What I do have a problem with is that if a footballer came out with views that aren’t shared by the loudest voices on social media and certain areas of the media then I can see a pile-on.

    I seem to recall when Frank Lampard made the hideous admission he was a Tory he was vilified by certain sections of the noisier righteous people in the country.

    I think that anyone who lauds Marcus Rashford for using his public voice to try and change things in line with his and his circle’s beliefs should also be totally accepting of other public personalities freely espousing their views on politics.

    Absolutely correct of course.

    Good luck with that one. Free speech? For people you don't agree with? Are you mad.

    The issue is those people believe in free speech, provided you are talking about things they agree with.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 12,575
    I see the HS2 extension through Leeds has been effectively cancelled.

    So much for levelling up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    I dont know why you wouldn't get it, even if you don't share it. It's incredibly common the world over that people feel closer connection to their place or birth or where they were raised, even if theres objectively crappy things about it.
    Probably how expressed it (same answer to CR although he was less polite than you). I get that people are. It is the norm, but like a few others (the minority) have expressed in agreement with me we don't get it emotionally. The analogy I gave was I don't get how people can like country music, but they do. I know that, but don't get why they do. They probably feel the same about me re blues music. I get that they do, but don't get it emotionally and even that is not 100% true as, as I said previously I do support the local sporting team and do love my children over and above equally nice other people, so I am not entirely emotionally devoid.

    Americans think USA is the best country, Brits Britain, French France. They can't all be right.
    Who's to say they are not right, for them?

    The same applies to people's parents, families, communities, football clubs, counties and nations. And you've already conceded that for the first three categories, but not the remainder, and I wonder why?

    I suspect it's because you don't like what you perceive as the political implications of those so you are practicing a form of cognitive dissonance.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    And the pros and cons if more were like me:

    Less wars (pro)
    A near emotionally arid world (con)
    If people didn't fight over land and territory they'd fight over something else - status, values, resource allocation, elitism or rights.

    It's a total fallacy to say that "religions and nations are behind all wars", although a very common one in the erstwhile intelligent internationalist Left.
    Well clearly people will fight over anything, but to say nationalism is never the cause of wars is clearly barking.

    If you are describing me as intelligent internationalist left (I'm not sure you are) I'll take the first two obviously, but left? Think you have me mixed up with some else if you think I am of the left. I am not a Tory and I am a LD, but I am to to the right of many Tories on many things including yourself.
    Please explain what you're to the right of me on?

    I'd be interested to hear more.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.

    You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
    Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.

    I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.

    Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.

    Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.

    Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
    I wasn't angry at all as it happens.

    I just think you have a blind spot you're struggling to recognise.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.

    Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure.
    If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great.
    But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with.
    Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
    My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
    Weren’t you calling for Rashford to ‘shut the fuck up’ a few days ago? Otoh I don’t remember you calling for citizen of nowhere Rupe to butt out of UK politics. Does that mean you’re a hypocrite of the right?
    Yes. I am still of the same view, although more moderate in my language. He wants government spending to increase by £6bn. Great. Get yourself elected on that manifesto.

    I don’t particularly remember calling for Rupert to butt out (although he hasn’t been that active for a decade - it’s James who is more involved now. He was born in London so I assume he’s a British citizen although, TBH, I’ve never asked! But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts
    I don't mind him having a view.

    I do mind being obliged to agree with him in polite circles due to his "lived experience" and popularity as a role model and footballing icon, to which expressing any disagreement would be suspect.

    Let's discuss each view on its merits.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,224

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.

    Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.

    Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
    Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
    There's a place for both.

    I see Rule Brittania as a defiant shout of freedom and expression of independence and self-belief as a nation, and it's rather fun.

    It don't see it as a Trojan Horse for wanting to make China British, or endorsing slavery, and I find those that think that way rather ludicrous.
    Now here is the thing. I find both very moving, as I do the last night of the proms in its entirety. Again something I would add to my list of things I like about Britain (also to that list I would add pantomimes, if for no other reason trying to explain them to foreigners and I really enjoy them).

    I would joyfully wave a Union Jack to both songs, but would happily wave anything at them. They are moving tunes and I can see how they can make you feel proud, particularly at the backdrop of British success in a sporting event.

    But that is exactly what an American does as well in a similar scenario. Great at the time, but in the cold light of day has no more meaning than that. It is all an accident of birth. We are all no better and no worse no matter where we are born and every country has its good and bad bits. We are lucky in that we generally have more good than bad bits.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,826
    edited October 2021

    I see the HS2 extension through Leeds has been effectively cancelled.

    So much for levelling up.

    Link please - at the moment it's just Shapp against the rest of the industry who have pointed out the whole point of the two other schemes he is still promoting (Midland Hub and Northern Powerrail) is to link into and depend upon HS2 being built.

    Without the east bound link HS2 is basically a secondary WCML route. With the Eastern Leg it provides increased capacity across all 3 North South lines (WCML, ECML and the more central Midland Mainline).

    It's almost like he thinks HS2 is about speed when it's really about capacity with Speed as a secondary benefit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?

    You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.

    Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.

    We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
    I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
    I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.

    Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.

    Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
    Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
    There's a place for both.

    I see Rule Brittania as a defiant shout of freedom and expression of independence and self-belief as a nation, and it's rather fun.

    It don't see it as a Trojan Horse for wanting to make China British, or endorsing slavery, and I find those that think that way rather ludicrous.
    Now here is the thing. I find both very moving, as I do the last night of the proms in its entirety. Again something I would add to my list of things I like about Britain (also to that list I would add pantomimes, if for no other reason trying to explain them to foreigners and I really enjoy them).

    I would joyfully wave a Union Jack to both songs, but would happily wave anything at them. They are moving tunes and I can see how they can make you feel proud, particularly at the backdrop of British success in a sporting event.

    But that is exactly what an American does as well in a similar scenario. Great at the time, but in the cold light of day has no more meaning than that. It is all an accident of birth. We are all no better and no worse no matter where we are born and every country has its good and bad bits. We are lucky in that we generally have more good than bad bits.
    I think where you and I disagree is that an "accident of birth" has no meaning.

    I think it does. Our identity is made up of all sorts of parts of us we didn't choose.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who haven't had it yet the Flu Jab now available - I found it very easy to organise via Boots - and free for over-60s:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services

    Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
    I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
    Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
    While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".

    Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
    Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.

    Is there anything they've got right?!
    Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
    And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers back.
    She told me in a private conversation while the needle was being stuck into my arm, so I'd suggest that is wilful projection on your part.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 12,575
    eek said:

    I see the HS2 extension through Leeds has been effectively cancelled.

    So much for levelling up.

    Link please - at the moment it's just Shapp against the rest of the industry who have pointed out the whole point of the two other schemes he is still promoting (Midland Hub and Northern Powerrail) is to link into and depend upon HS2 being built.

    Without the east bound link HS2 is basically a secondary WCML route. With the Eastern Leg it provides increased capacity across all 3 North South lines (WCML, ECML and the more central Midland Mainline).

    It's almost like he thinks HS2 is about speed when it's really about capacity with Speed as a secondary benefit.
    Seems the general consensus of the commentators I follow.

    Formal announcement still pending, albeit Shapps is dropping heavy hints.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,826
    edited October 2021

    eek said:

    I see the HS2 extension through Leeds has been effectively cancelled.

    So much for levelling up.

    Link please - at the moment it's just Shapp against the rest of the industry who have pointed out the whole point of the two other schemes he is still promoting (Midland Hub and Northern Powerrail) is to link into and depend upon HS2 being built.

    Without the east bound link HS2 is basically a secondary WCML route. With the Eastern Leg it provides increased capacity across all 3 North South lines (WCML, ECML and the more central Midland Mainline).

    It's almost like he thinks HS2 is about speed when it's really about capacity with Speed as a secondary benefit.
    Seems the general consensus of the commentators I follow.

    Formal announcement still pending, albeit Shapps is dropping heavy hints.
    And see the issues above - if they were cancelling any part of HS2 they've cancelled the wrong bit - but lets wait and see as there are a lot of seats who wanted HS2 and are now going to be upset.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,490

    eek said:

    I see the HS2 extension through Leeds has been effectively cancelled.

    So much for levelling up.

    Link please - at the moment it's just Shapp against the rest of the industry who have pointed out the whole point of the two other schemes he is still promoting (Midland Hub and Northern Powerrail) is to link into and depend upon HS2 being built.

    Without the east bound link HS2 is basically a secondary WCML route. With the Eastern Leg it provides increased capacity across all 3 North South lines (WCML, ECML and the more central Midland Mainline).

    It's almost like he thinks HS2 is about speed when it's really about capacity with Speed as a secondary benefit.
    Seems the general consensus of the commentators I follow.

    Formal announcement still pending, albeit Shapps is dropping heavy hints.
    I suspect it'll be kicked into the long-grass. It does defy rationality, though, as it's a huge part of the rationale for HS2.

    Also, HS2 will blow its current budget by 20-30% without doing anything wrong, or any risks or critical issues materialising, just due to excess base price and wage inflation over the next 10 years.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,604
    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.

    I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.

    The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
    I dont know why you wouldn't get it, even if you don't share it. It's incredibly common the world over that people feel closer connection to their place or birth or where they were raised, even if theres objectively crappy things about it.
    Probably how expressed it (same answer to CR although he was less polite than you). I get that people are. It is the norm, but like a few others (the minority) have expressed in agreement with me we don't get it emotionally. The analogy I gave was I don't get how people can like country music, but they do. I know that, but don't get why they do. They probably feel the same about me re blues music. I get that they do, but don't get it emotionally and even that is not 100% true as, as I said previously I do support the local sporting team and do love my children over and above equally nice other people, so I am not entirely emotionally devoid.

    Americans think USA is the best country, Brits Britain, French France. They can't all be right.
    But doesn't country occupy a similar category to family, in that it has helped make us (most of us, at least) what we are in a similar-ish manner ?

    I'm probably in the warm feeling towards native land category; love seems a bit too strong.
    In any event, feelings aren't subject to wholly rational analysis.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,532

    Pulpstar said:

    Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him.
    One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.

    He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
    Yes. And I think people have tried to draw him in so they can. Thus far hes avoided it.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,313
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Just watching Question Time (I know, sad). Interestingly, Boris's conference speech was absolutely slammed by the panel and by the audience. Even Nadhim Zahawi couldn't think of anything good to say about it, and seemed rather taken aback by the vitriol expressed by the audience.

    Boris needs to be careful: he's starting to get the reputation that you only go to him for laughs.
    I've been surprised by how many right wingish news columns and so on have been negative about his speech.

    From the point of view of a section of the right, Boris has outlived his use.
    That's his biggest danger. The papers choose the PM.
    They don't. The public do and as long as Boris leads the polls he is in no danger.

    Most people don't read the papers anymore anyway in the social media and internet age
    Political social media is crammed full of people sharing political output from newspapers. The papers set tones and narratives that are found in social media.
    And yeah, I'm counting news websites as "the papers". Don't @ me.
    It is not news sites that determine Boris' future but opinion polls. All Tory MPs care about is keeping their seats, as long as Boris leads the polls he is in no danger, if he falls behind he is in danger. It was the poor post Poll Tax polls that did for Thatcher in 1990 and IDS' poor polling that did for him in 2003.

    Otherwise provided the Tories stay in the lead Boris will stay PM and Tory leader until the next general election. Then the voters will decide if he is re elected or replaced by Starmer, if the latter then the Tories would dump him after that
    Yup, and those who have the power to move public opinion hold the whip.
    Now is the time, get someone more reliable in who doesn't make such weird choices. Get someone a bit stuffy and sensible at the helm.
    We had someone stuffy and sensible before, Theresa May. She lost her majority hence Boris got the job.

    If voters want someone stuffy and sensible they will vote for Starmer
    Theresa May, sensible?
    Stuffy, I agree. But she is a bit mad, really, if you're honest with yourself.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,475

    My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.

    TBF most of the country is white, so I'm not sure what the point it about that?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,475
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Germany today

    22,000 cases and 411 deaths

    A statistical blip? Or their luck running out?

    Well, hard to know for sure. They're nowhere near as vaccinated (particularly in the East) as France/Spain/Italy/etc., so they're potentially pretty vulnerable.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they had a nasty Autumn in Thuringia/Mecklenerg/etc.
    411 deaths is a huge leap from their "normal", tho their number of daily deaths WAS slowly rising, likewise cases

    As we all know one of the habits of Covid is to seek out countries which have been a *tiny bit smug* about their Covid handling, and give them a spanking. As a lesson. Perhaps now it is Germany's turn
    Having spent nearly three weeks there this year, I don’t think smug is a fair description. It’s the only place I have been where observance of precautions is consistent, and challenged if you forget; in towns and cities I kept coming across free testing points and vaccination stations, with small queues of properly distanced people waiting for them.

    If Germany’s figures do go poor (and a sudden jump in daily deaths is more likely to be random fluctuation since a worsening situation should see a progressive change) the more accurate conclusion is that the new variant is sufficiently contagious that we are now wasting our time with all the precautions.
    Agreed re Germans’ behaviour: conformance to the rules is astounding. Definitely not “smug” as Sean claims. Like most things, they take Covid very seriously.
    Haven't heard Merkel going on about world beating anything. Imagine if Britain had Germany's relatively somewhat better numbers compared to some neighbours, Johnson would be claiming credit every day

    Also Leon's death figures are just wrong.
    Happy to believe you know better based on where you are - I think Leon has the numbers from Worldometer. Is there a suggestion that there has been so data revision? I saw that Germany thinks it has miscounted how many its vaccinated, for instance. Have they dumped a load of historic cases and deaths out on the 7th, and made it look like a spike?
    https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4/page/page_1/

    86 deaths yesterday. Previous days lower I think. Probably worldometer adjusting their shit figures to bring them in line

    On vaccines, I know a few people who are vaccinated unofficially with leftover doses there was no way to record, so could be true.
    Worldometer linked to a report in German that I couldn't read, so I don't think it was them adjusting the figures.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Charles said:

    Rashford comes out against UC cut. Interview on BBC Breakfast tomorrow.

    Government and Sunak in particular about to be hit by the full broadside.

    I hear Graham Stringer is going to defect.

    May be he should stand in the by-election?
    Here's the link from the BBC website to Saint Marcus's latest BBC Breakfast appearance, for those who are interested.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58833429
    I was thinking about it this morning

    Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically

    So does Rupert Murdoch

    But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other

    They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
    As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.

    Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure.
    If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great.
    But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with.
    Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
    My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
    Weren’t you calling for Rashford to ‘shut the fuck up’ a few days ago? Otoh I don’t remember you calling for citizen of nowhere Rupe to butt out of UK politics. Does that mean you’re a hypocrite of the right?
    Yes. I am still of the same view, although more moderate in my language. He wants government spending to increase by £6bn. Great. Get yourself elected on that manifesto.

    I don’t particularly remember calling for Rupert to butt out (although he hasn’t been that active for a decade - it’s James who is more involved now. He was born in London so I assume he’s a British citizen although, TBH, I’ve never asked! But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts
    ”But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts”

    Ho ho. Never heard of BBC Scotland?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,903
    edited October 2021

    I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.

    Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.

    The type of campaigner/volunteer i respect the most is one who gives up large chunks of their life/fortune to help people. If Rashford spent his time getting premier league players to give up 20% of their incredible incomes and then used this money to directly help those less fortunate then I would think he was great. What he does is use is notiriety to force the Government to borrow even more money to increase benefits. I don't see how that makes him a national treasure. He lives a life of incredible luxury and will never have to work a day in his life, whilst preaching on how the average taxpayer should fund more benefit rises. How about giving away one of his many cars to someone without a car? He could fund the building of a YMCA hostel in Manchester for those without a home.
    First result on Google: Rashford has given £20m to charity.

    https://www.givemesport.com/1725339-marcus-rashford-man-utd-star-has-donated-125-of-his-personal-wealth-to-charities

    Looking forward to @NerysHughes becoming Rashford's biggest fan now.
    Pretty decisive answer!

    A friend in Austria tells me that a number of Social Democrat and Green municipal elections have been won recently by candidates noted for their personal efforts and contributions, topped by a Communist winning the mayoral election in Graz (the second-largest city), even though the party is on 0.1% nationally. Apparently she gives most of her council income to a local charity for people in difficulty and the party has built a reputation for being helpful with legal advice, food banks, etc.

    Little problem with any of this - there's a small query about building popularity with money, but in the end if people sacrifice time and personal income for local people, I can see that people would feel they're pretty strong candidates for municipal office. We have a community store locally which is I think mostly run by LibDem and Labour volunteers - we are all shy of claiming any political credit, though, and I think it's difficult to know where to draw the line.
This discussion has been closed.