This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
The problem with the left is their obsession with identity politics imo.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
I wouldn’t have put it quite like that, but the sentiment is correct. See Michael Moore’s famous 2016 speech on why people were voting for Trump, something that’s pretty likely to be the case again this year.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
A sensible Left would propose more foreign aid, investment, conflict resolution, and bilateral agreements, including help at source, to "stop the boats".
Instead, they say "safe and legal routes" which I don't think they realise is heard as: create an open door for anyone who wants it.
These are the arguments made by the "loony left" - whereas the idea of increasing foreign aid is anathema because people always say "but we should help our own first". Which goes back to my point - if you meet the material needs of people, there is no frustration that will build up to be misattributed to "the other". The neoliberal capitalist consensus cannot do that - more profit must be skimmed and therefore the average person will lose out. The right do not want to do that - they like having an "other" to have grievances against to protect the fact that capitalism is the reason for this. The left want to deal with this issue - and get called communists for proposing policy solutions or slight social democratic reform with wealth redistribution and investment in civic infrastructure.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women. Where are the biggest stumbling blocks to that? It's not gammons in the golf clubs and WWC in the pubs.
@148grss It’s possible to be both centre-left and hard-nosed in defence of national interests, like Attlee, Truman, Wilson, Mitterrand. Our problem is the right spend their time cosplaying patriotism and the left don’t think there are national interests to defend.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Around 2017 I switched from seeing the right as the most dangerous threat to civilisation, to the left. Not so much the political 'far left' but the left in terms of all its cultural power which encompasses most of mainstream politics and elite culture.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
Firstly, that's not remotely addressing the question I put, which suggests to me you don't want to because you know full well what the actual answer is; and secondly, evidence on the LGBT+ point? Because, again, if there are two things that are *really* pushing back on gay rights, it's religion and imported conservative cultures.
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Isn’t any wing of Government borrowing on commercial terms a complete waste of money though? By definition (even more so in a major economy like ours, with a fairly strong currency) they are good for the money, and backstopped by central Government. Agreeing any more than Gilt rates is silly.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
By allowing them to get married?
A (Muslim) friend of mine said: of course we should legalize gay marriage. Marriage is shit, and I don't see why gay people should be exempt.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women. Where are the biggest stumbling blocks to that? It's not gammons in the golf clubs and WWC in the pubs.
{Pim Fortuyn has entered the chat}
Throwing insults around is no substitute for engaging with the issues.
I'm guessing you weren't on the receiving end of a phone call from a councillor - not a shy and retiring individual by any stretch of the imagination - who'd been advised not to speak against a motion to council on Gaza because of the threat to him and his family of mob violence. I was.
Councils going bust is simple: money. The Tories have largely removed the government grant, and have increased the number of statutory services that must be provided (such as Adult Social Care). They then allow councils to be unpopular by adding 2% to CT bills supposedly to pay for it. But that doesn't raise enough money.
Councils gambling on property was done for two simple reasons: desperation and right wing dick-waving. If you are Tory then having your council own a load of property sounds great (unless its homes in which case its bad). Until the value of the property drops or the cheap interest rates go and then you are bust.
The Bournemouth number sounds toppy, but we know that homelessness is endemic in some places and any reactive spending on emergency anything is very expensive. People are homeless because our economy is structurally broken. What we need to do is empower councils to build houses - but we can't do that any more as its communism or something.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
Yes, branding rules, and for some reason French have it down - not for nothing is LVMH one of the world's biggest companies.
Or to take a smaller example, Hotel Chocolat is rubbish chocolate - but has made its former owners quite wealthy. And that's French at second hand.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Around 2017 I switched from seeing the right as the most dangerous threat to civilisation, to the left. Not so much the political 'far left' but the left in terms of all its cultural power which encompasses most of mainstream politics and elite culture.
Literally: the Red Pill moment
It is a real thing. I have friends. - of all ages - that have swallowed the red pill and then realised this. It is quite something to witness
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz does seem to have been used more and more recently. Nobody in any trade body has proposed this, it’s just sort of happened. You see it on menus too. It’s easy enough to vary into Welsh fizz too.
We are however facing a bit of a crisis point in the next 2 years with huge amounts of supply coming on stream and wholesale grape prices tumbling. Every new wine region goes through the glut phase, usually followed by consolidation and a focus on quality. Good thing is we never had the fall in quality that usually comes with a glut. It’s all improving every year.
Aussie Shiraz survived, as did Argie Malbec
Both can be superb products, sold alongside the cheaper variety. She’ll be apples
OK German Liebfraumilch never recovered, but then, what were they thinking: Blue Nun? Black Tower? And Mateus Rose never got over its being Saddam Hussein’s favourite wine
As long as Putin isn’t guzzling the Chapel Down all is well
And yes, English Fizz is a really good name. I don’t understand why producers resist it: it is easy to say, memorable, and has that indefinable pizazz
“Oh I say, shall we have some more ENGLISH FIZZ??” AHA! YES!
You immediately picture everyone in some film adaptation of PG Wodehouse. This is a GOOD thing for a celebratory wine with aspirational branding
Also, some of the alternatives OMG.
“Albion” is one
Albion. That’s British sherry re-fermented by Nigel Farage’s retarded half brother, who lives in a shed in Worksop
Interesting story about Mateus Rose, from Oz Clarke’s history of wine.
The country estate pictured on the label isn’t the wine estate, it’s a nearby house. The owners were offered either a one off payment equivalent to about £50k in modern prices, or around 1p per bottle sold. Sadly they chose the fixed payment.
Great story
A very similar story exists in British publishing. H Rider Haggard had just finished and pitched his first novel - King’s Solomons Mines - and the putative publisher was very keen. But Haggard was a novice. Had no idea what to ask for in return. So the scheming editor said “we can give you a lavish lump sum of five hundred guineas here and now!” Then, with a lower voice, and a curl of the lip “Or we can offer you… royalties” - the wince very much meant to imply: this could be thruppence
Rider Haggard had no idea what this was all about so he asked for a night to think it over. As he left the office a clerk, who had overheard the conversation, quietly lifted an eyebrow as the author passed the desk and he said
“Er, Mister Rider Haggard, I rather think you should choose the royalties”
And then went back to work
So the author did choose the royalties. And he made several billion guineas, at a rough guess
English Fizz sounds like a downmarket alcopop, or roughly as aspirational as Buckfast - the sort of thing I'd expect them to be necking on Geordie Shore or in the butt-crack of Camden Town.
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I think people are getting a bit too protective of me now, which is nice. My only reservations from the posts was motion sickness which wasn't previously a concern.
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I've done a Grand Canyon helicopter tour from South Rim with the whole family. Papillon out of Tusayan IIRC. It was great, and no-one was sick. Went about 8-9 am on a summer morning, guess it could be a little bumpier late afternoon ?
The West Rim is a far inferior destination. If you want to "do" the GC, you have to go to the South Rim, walk along the rim trail a bit, ideally stay overnight to get sunset and maybe sunrise as well.
Pro tip - if you do end up going to South Rim, and you have a car and want somewhere quiet maybe even deserted to watch sunset, park up and walk in to Shoshone Point.
@148grss It’s possible to be both centre-left and hard-nosed in defence of national interests, like Attlee, Truman, Wilson, Mitterrand. Our problem is the right spend their time cosplaying patriotism and the left don’t think there are national interests to defend.
On a complete tangent (but this is PB) when did “cosplaying” become a mainstream phrase? I think that five years ago (and certainly ten) no one would have understood you. You would have had to have said “pretending to be” or made a longer “in fancy dress as” phrase.
I still don’t like the word but it’s here now. Do young folk even talk about “fancy dress” any more?
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I think people are getting a bit too protective of me now, which is nice. My only reservations from the posts was motion sickness which wasn't previously a concern.
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
Ah. Well you seem to have it all sorted.
And very opportune for me to repeat the story of a journalist going to fly as a passenger in some kind of fast jet with the RAF and being told to eat bananas beforehand for breakfast. When he asked whether this was for the health and/or potassium content he was told no, it is because bananas taste the same coming up as they do going down.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
...Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I think people are getting a bit too protective of me now, which is nice. My only reservations from the posts was motion sickness which wasn't previously a concern.
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
For the record, I managed not to vomit, despite the sounds and smell of others vomiting in the small fuselage. At the age of 12.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women. Where are the biggest stumbling blocks to that? It's not gammons in the golf clubs and WWC in the pubs.
{Pim Fortuyn has entered the chat}
Throwing insults around is no substitute for engaging with the issues.
I'm guessing you weren't on the receiving end of a phone call from a councillor - not a shy and retiring individual by any stretch of the imagination - who'd been advised not to speak against a motion to council on Gaza because of the threat to him and his family of mob violence. I was.
Not an insult - Pim Fortuyn entire political "thing" was protecting Dutch Liberalism from non-liberal values. His murderer said he did it, in part, because Fortuyn couldn't be labeled/dismissed as anti-immigrant. Given he was in a long term relationship with an immigrant and was very flamboyant about it.
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I think people are getting a bit too protective of me now, which is nice. My only reservations from the posts was motion sickness which wasn't previously a concern.
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
Ah. Well you seem to have it all sorted.
And very opportune for me to repeat the story of a journalist going to fly as a passenger some kind of fast jet with the RAF and being told to eat bananas beforehand for breakfast. When he asked whether this was for the health and/or potassium content he was told no, it is because bananas taste the same coming up as they do going down.
Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).
A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
I think people are getting a bit too protective of me now, which is nice. My only reservations from the posts was motion sickness which wasn't previously a concern.
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
Ah. Well you seem to have it all sorted.
And very opportune for me to repeat the story of a journalist going to fly as a passenger some kind of fast jet with the RAF and being told to eat bananas beforehand for breakfast. When he asked whether this was for the health and/or potassium content he was told no, it is because bananas taste the same coming up as they do going down.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Tons of Thai Muslims about. And they aren't like that at all. More like the Peruvians.
Edit: Clue. If you imported lots of American rednecks from certain, extremely poor, parts of Texas and couple of other states.....
@148grss It’s possible to be both centre-left and hard-nosed in defence of national interests, like Attlee, Truman, Wilson, Mitterrand. Our problem is the right spend their time cosplaying patriotism and the left don’t think there are national interests to defend.
On a complete tangent (but this is PB) when did “cosplaying” become a mainstream phrase? I think that five years ago (and certainly ten) no one would have understood you. You would have had to have said “pretending to be” or made a longer “in fancy dress as” phrase.
I still don’t like the word but it’s here now. Do young folk even talk about “fancy dress” any more?
Like much of modern culture, it originated in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay ..The term "cosplay" is a Japanese portmanteau of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard after he attended the 1984 World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) in Los Angeles and saw costumed fans, which he later wrote about in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja]. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because that translates into Japanese as "an aristocratic costume", which did not match his experience of the Worldcon. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ)...
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Tons of Thai Muslims about. And they aren't like that at all. More like the Peruvians.
That explains why Muslim Thailand has been in violent revolt for several decades, then
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Errr… Woking?
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
Firstly, that's not remotely addressing the question I put, which suggests to me you don't want to because you know full well what the actual answer is; and secondly, evidence on the LGBT+ point? Because, again, if there are two things that are *really* pushing back on gay rights, it's religion and imported conservative cultures.
The briefness of my response had more to do with me having to leave the office to catch a bus than anything else.
I have mentioned here before how hate crimes against LGBT+ people have increased over the last decade and how the UK went from one of the safest countries in the EU and has now dropped to like 10th. Why? Well, in report after report the answer is government and media rhetoric attacking trans people, which in turn effects all LGBT+ people (because the expectations of hetero gender roles are enforced similarly for sexual attraction and gender presentation). And there is no evidence to suggest this violence is disproportionately being done by immigrant populations. The government has refused to deal with conversion therapy and, as always, the economic impacts of their policies disproportionately impact those who are already at risk. That’s why youth homelessness is a LGBT+ issue, with LGBT (and specifically trans young people) being disproportionately homeless.
The same for women - the impacts of austerity (and much of the Thatcherite move away from state involvement) was a move to reaffirm the “traditional family”. As they are less likely to be the greater earner in a household, women have more pressure to stay in bad and abusive relationships. Many studies have shown these disproportionate impacts:
This is why “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” is a lie - fiscal conservatism has social impacts. Who has a greater negative impact on my life as a queer man - the guy who runs my corner shop who came here from Pakistan a decade ago or the Etonians who run the country? I know the answer.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
By allowing them to get married?
Which most Tory MPs did not vote for and which, if proposed today, would be called woke nonsense.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
For the official term you could abbreviate it to EF ?
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
“Royal Fizz”!
Like it
The Winners of the fizz event could pose on a podium and expel their fizz, F1 style, on the assembled audience.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Do you have any evidence that an increase in Muslim immigrants changes policies or hurts local LGBT+ communities? I’ll give you one for free - I know that some of the organising against youth sex education is backed by conservative Muslim groups; but it also has the backing of lots of home grown conservative groups as well.
Islam is the second biggest religion in the UK (if you don’t separate Christian into Catholic and protestant). 6.5% of the population in England and Wales (at the last census) are Muslim. This is not a group with significant political power to enforce their policy preferences, even if “creeping Sharia” were their preferred policy preferences.
@148grss It’s possible to be both centre-left and hard-nosed in defence of national interests, like Attlee, Truman, Wilson, Mitterrand. Our problem is the right spend their time cosplaying patriotism and the left don’t think there are national interests to defend.
On a complete tangent (but this is PB) when did “cosplaying” become a mainstream phrase? I think that five years ago (and certainly ten) no one would have understood you. You would have had to have said “pretending to be” or made a longer “in fancy dress as” phrase.
I still don’t like the word but it’s here now. Do young folk even talk about “fancy dress” any more?
Like much of modern culture, it originated in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay ..The term "cosplay" is a Japanese portmanteau of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard after he attended the 1984 World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) in Los Angeles and saw costumed fans, which he later wrote about in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja]. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because that translates into Japanese as "an aristocratic costume", which did not match his experience of the Worldcon. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ)...
Fascinating. Thank you. I now realise that, as ever, the answer was one trip to Wikipedia away….
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
For the official term you could abbreviate it to EF ?
The finest vintages could be inEFfable.
So linked to the conversation on Cosplay above, the Japanese are presumably out of this market on the basis they would abbreviate “Japanese Fizz” as “Jizz”.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
I would suggest he wants to maximise his power and influence before joining. An election disaster and opposition is ideal - can wait a year or two for a by-election and then another year or two to take over the leadership.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
That’s a choice between 6th violin in an orchestra versus lead singer in a indie cover band - he doesn’t care about being an MP he cares about the attention to him, and being a paid up Tory (without being the leader and claiming he has changed the party) is against his brand and desire for attention.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
I would suggest he wants to maximise his power and influence before joining. An election disaster and opposition is ideal - can wait a year or two for a by-election and then another year or two to take over the leadership.
But is the flip side of that the fact that he just won a reality tv show so has maximum recognition. My way round he could be in with a shout immediately post-election.
(Btw for the avoidance of doubt, this isn’t what I want).
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
I would suggest he wants to maximise his power and influence before joining. An election disaster and opposition is ideal - can wait a year or two for a by-election and then another year or two to take over the leadership.
But is the flip side of that the fact that he just won a reality tv show so has maximum recognition. My way round he could be in with a shout immediately post-election.
(Btw for the avoidance of doubt, this isn’t what I want).
Would strictly dare go there......I doubt it. Maybe a singing talent show and he can enhance his duets with Priti.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
That’s a choice between 6th violin in an orchestra versus lead singer in a indie cover band - he doesn’t care about being an MP he cares about the attention to him, and being a paid up Tory (without being the leader and claiming he has changed the party) is against his brand and desire for attention.
It’s all about the framing. “I tried to save you in the election by campaigning for you, but even I’m not that good without you letting me be leader” is a better pitch in 2025 than “the party I led screwed you over” isn’t it?
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Errr… Woking?
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
I don't think local government borrowing is consolidated into gross government debt numbers.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
I would suggest he wants to maximise his power and influence before joining. An election disaster and opposition is ideal - can wait a year or two for a by-election and then another year or two to take over the leadership.
But is the flip side of that the fact that he just won a reality tv show so has maximum recognition. My way round he could be in with a shout immediately post-election.
(Btw for the avoidance of doubt, this isn’t what I want).
Would strictly dare go there......I doubt it. Maybe a singing talent show and he can enhance his duets with Priti.
Oh wait, did he not win I’m a Celeb? I just assumed he had? “Placed highly in a reality tv show” then.
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Errr… Woking?
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
I don't think local government borrowing is consolidated into gross government debt numbers.
Not sure about that. If it ain’t then it soon will be. ONS has been closing down all the “off balance sheet” nonsense.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Or Farage. With Boris taking mid-Beds as rumoured before.
Farage will never be admitted to the Conservative Party, surely?
Rishi says Farage is welcome.
I have assumed the reason he hasn’t yet taken over from Tice is that the Tories are in talks with him. They can offer him the chance to finally be an MP. Reform can offer him a major place on the national stage through the election, but probably not that.
That’s a choice between 6th violin in an orchestra versus lead singer in a indie cover band - he doesn’t care about being an MP he cares about the attention to him, and being a paid up Tory (without being the leader and claiming he has changed the party) is against his brand and desire for attention.
It’s all about the framing. “I tried to save you in the election by campaigning for you, but even I’m not that good without you letting me be leader” is a better pitch in 2025 than “the party I led screwed you over” isn’t it?
The framing would be the merger of the two right wing parties to reflect “insert bullshit here” in a way that allowed Farage to rapidly become leader
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
I see the right is getting in early on who’s to blame for the rise of the far right. You’d think after the absolutely dire shift that their own brand of sensible(sic) centre right politics has put in that they might be a smidgeon more reflective.
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Errr… Woking?
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
I don't think local government borrowing is consolidated into gross government debt numbers.
Not sure about that. If it ain’t then it soon will be. ONS has been closing down all the “off balance sheet” nonsense.
I was always told to be careful about debt to GDP numbers, because they only measured central government obligations. (Meaning the US is more indebted than you'd think, while France is less.)
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
Isn't it a grove for citrus fruit?
That sounds right. We have to get comfortable with all this before British red wine, oranges, and olive oil take over the world in the 2040s.
Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.
LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.
If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
Errr… Woking?
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
I don't think local government borrowing is consolidated into gross government debt numbers.
Not sure about that. If it ain’t then it soon will be. ONS has been closing down all the “off balance sheet” nonsense.
I was always told to be careful about debt to GDP numbers, because they only measured central government obligations. (Meaning the US is more indebted than you'd think, while France is less.)
There’s certainly a very sensible message there about how blithely people compare national statistics without any awareness they are not standardised or compiled by a third party.
I’ve seen a lot written about trying to calculate actual GDP numbers in Africa based on observable facts like street lights, for example.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
It’s possible now, but olives are a volume game and yields just aren’t up there with the Med. There’s an olive farm on the Kent/Sussex borders - Oxney Olives.
Cabernet Sauv is a long way off. We can already grow and ripen the 4 Pinots, Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Cab Franc (just about), Albariño, Chasselas and Gamay(ish). I am attempting Melon de Bourgogne (Muscadet). Next stop is Riesling which stubbornly refuses to ripen here, then Chenin blanc, Syrah (not actually a hot climate grape despite reputation), then the Bordeaux reds Merlot CS and Malbec.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Isn't the gulf stream to disappear. I'll be betting the farm on moose & reindeer.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
It’s possible now, but olives are a volume game and yields just aren’t up there with the Med. There’s an olive farm on the Kent/Sussex borders - Oxney Olives.
Cabernet Sauv is a long way off. We can already grow and ripen the 4 Pinots, Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Cab Franc (just about), Albariño, Chasselas and Gamay(ish). I am attempting Melon de Bourgogne (Muscadet). Next stop is Riesling which stubbornly refuses to ripen here, then Chenin blanc, Syrah (not actually a hot climate grape despite reputation), then the Bordeaux reds Merlot CS and Malbec.
Interesting. It will be a massive psychological change to get people to accept English red, but then English white was a joke when I was a kid. It feels like growers changed that by targeting and winning awards?
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Isn't the gulf stream to disappear. I'll be betting the farm on moose & reindeer.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Tons of Thai Muslims about. And they aren't like that at all. More like the Peruvians.
That explains why Muslim Thailand has been in violent revolt for several decades, then
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Yes it is - austerity (for example) disproportionately impacts women and this government have been awful for LGBT+ people.
By allowing them to get married?
Which most Tory MPs did not vote for and which, if proposed today, would be called woke nonsense.
The relevant minister, Lynne Featherstone’s book about the achievement of equal marriage is now published.
Cammo, and the minority of sensible Tory MPs, appreciated that being on the wrong, and losing, side of history would do them no favours. And credit for Mrs May for seeing this early on.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Do you have any evidence that an increase in Muslim immigrants changes policies or hurts local LGBT+ communities? I’ll give you one for free - I know that some of the organising against youth sex education is backed by conservative Muslim groups; but it also has the backing of lots of home grown conservative groups as well.
Islam is the second biggest religion in the UK (if you don’t separate Christian into Catholic and protestant). 6.5% of the population in England and Wales (at the last census) are Muslim. This is not a group with significant political power to enforce their policy preferences, even if “creeping Sharia” were their preferred policy preferences.
I see the right is getting in early on who’s to blame for the rise of the far right. You’d think after the absolutely dire shift that their own brand of sensible(sic) centre right politics has put in that they might be a smidgeon more reflective.
I don't get this nonsense about lefty liberals being to blame for recent immigration.
Even going back a few generations we have
Sunak - Right, neither liberal nor authoritarian Truss - Right, not in office long enough to show liberal vs authoritarian Johnson - Being generous - centre right, neither liberal nor authoritarian May - Right, authoritarian Cameron - Centre right, liberal Brown - Left, authoritarian Blair - Centrist, neither liberal nor authoritarian Major - Centre right, neither liberal nor authoritarian Thatcher - Right, neither liberal nor authoritarian
There aren't that many left liberals around in the first place and they have never had power here. Our default is centre right to right, neutral to authoritarian. Which to be fair is reflective of the country generally even if not to my taste.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”
They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco
That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka
Here are some other suggested alternatives
Merret
Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)
Pefriog
I’m not joking: Pefriog
Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.
To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality
This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly
Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon
I don't see how you can stop someone making tacky carbonated wine from calling their product 'English fizz' if it is English and fizzy.
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
You apply rules. That’s all you have to do
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
I understand your arguments, and I know you understand the ones I've put forward. I'm comfortable with consumers of the product calling it English fizz (I don't see it getting much traction outside England, but I think England's mainly where the consumer base is), but I don't think it belongs as a badge on a bottle for all the reasons I've outlined.
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
Traditional method English and Welsh sparkling wine already has PDO (ie appellation contrôlée) status, so it’s unlikely ever to be renamed anything like English fizz or Britagne or whatever.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
It's somewhat of a missed opportunity. I think there's a good deal of export potential (not to France, most of them are so insular they've never even heard of Prosecco) if a name could stick. I say this as someone who comes from Sussex, but who gives a fuck about the South Downs? As a system I do prefer the German way; it just seems far more logical. If you can make a great wine in Fife, do it and let it be judged alongside everything else.
I wonder whether climate change will make southern England more suited to raising the grapes than champagne in 50 years?
We’re already at the climate of Champagne in the mid 20thC and harvests, sugars etc are comparable.
I think Biggest point is that in 50 years, we might be able to grow other - warmer weather - varietals, like Cabernet Sauvignon.
Half in jest, I have wondered about a long term bet on an olive grove or an orange orchard (is it an orchard for oranges?).
It’s possible now, but olives are a volume game and yields just aren’t up there with the Med. There’s an olive farm on the Kent/Sussex borders - Oxney Olives.
Cabernet Sauv is a long way off. We can already grow and ripen the 4 Pinots, Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Cab Franc (just about), Albariño, Chasselas and Gamay(ish). I am attempting Melon de Bourgogne (Muscadet). Next stop is Riesling which stubbornly refuses to ripen here, then Chenin blanc, Syrah (not actually a hot climate grape despite reputation), then the Bordeaux reds Merlot CS and Malbec.
Interesting. It will be a massive psychological change to get people to accept English red, but then English white was a joke when I was a kid. It feels like growers changed that by targeting and winning awards?
Try Danbury Ridge Octagon block Pinot Noir. Not cheap but up there with a village Cote de Nuits. Better than 90% of new world Pinots I’ve had.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
A sensible Left would propose more foreign aid, investment, conflict resolution, and bilateral agreements, including help at source, to "stop the boats".
Instead, they say "safe and legal routes" which I don't think they realise is heard as: create an open door for anyone who wants it.
These are the arguments made by the "loony left" - whereas the idea of increasing foreign aid is anathema because people always say "but we should help our own first". Which goes back to my point - if you meet the material needs of people, there is no frustration that will build up to be misattributed to "the other". The neoliberal capitalist consensus cannot do that - more profit must be skimmed and therefore the average person will lose out. The right do not want to do that - they like having an "other" to have grievances against to protect the fact that capitalism is the reason for this. The left want to deal with this issue - and get called communists for proposing policy solutions or slight social democratic reform with wealth redistribution and investment in civic infrastructure.
I haven't heard the left make a cogent argument on this.
In fact, phrases like "neoliberal capitalist consensus" sort of show both why you don't think it's worth bothering to try and how you'd get it badly wrong if you did.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Do you have any evidence that an increase in Muslim immigrants changes policies or hurts local LGBT+ communities? I’ll give you one for free - I know that some of the organising against youth sex education is backed by conservative Muslim groups; but it also has the backing of lots of home grown conservative groups as well.
Islam is the second biggest religion in the UK (if you don’t separate Christian into Catholic and protestant). 6.5% of the population in England and Wales (at the last census) are Muslim. This is not a group with significant political power to enforce their policy preferences, even if “creeping Sharia” were their preferred policy preferences.
Sweet Jesus shagging Christ, you are stupid
It's clear to me that gay asylum seekers would be much safer if they turned their boats in the direction of Iran/Gaza/Syria/ indeed any Muslim country 148grss cares to mention...
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".
The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
That would make more sense if so many of the people immigrating weren't the actual cultural and social reactionaries. You talk about equal rights for gays and women as if that's somehow an inevitable corollary of immigration because both are 'progressive'. Where are the biggest obstacles in society now to those rights? It's not gammons in the golf clubs or WWCM in the pubs.
Quite so
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
One thing I find interesting is how some cultures adopt to being immigrants.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
It’s not hard to work out. It’s religion
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Do you have any evidence that an increase in Muslim immigrants changes policies or hurts local LGBT+ communities? I’ll give you one for free - I know that some of the organising against youth sex education is backed by conservative Muslim groups; but it also has the backing of lots of home grown conservative groups as well.
Islam is the second biggest religion in the UK (if you don’t separate Christian into Catholic and protestant). 6.5% of the population in England and Wales (at the last census) are Muslim. This is not a group with significant political power to enforce their policy preferences, even if “creeping Sharia” were their preferred policy preferences.
This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.
I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.
Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.
Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.
It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.
And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case
Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA
We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that
It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50
The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover
However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?
How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK
Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay
Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.
To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark
This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country
People like you are fucking dangerous
It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign. Integration is very very hard.
Are you some kind of Nazi???
Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?
All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf
This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.
Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous
It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler
And they just don’t get it
A sensible Left would propose more foreign aid, investment, conflict resolution, and bilateral agreements, including help at source, to "stop the boats".
Instead, they say "safe and legal routes" which I don't think they realise is heard as: create an open door for anyone who wants it.
These are the arguments made by the "loony left" - whereas the idea of increasing foreign aid is anathema because people always say "but we should help our own first". Which goes back to my point - if you meet the material needs of people, there is no frustration that will build up to be misattributed to "the other". The neoliberal capitalist consensus cannot do that - more profit must be skimmed and therefore the average person will lose out. The right do not want to do that - they like having an "other" to have grievances against to protect the fact that capitalism is the reason for this. The left want to deal with this issue - and get called communists for proposing policy solutions or slight social democratic reform with wealth redistribution and investment in civic infrastructure.
I haven't heard the left make a cogent argument on this.
In fact, phrases like "neoliberal capitalist consensus" sort of show both why you don't think it's worth bothering to try and how you'd get it badly wrong if you did.
The Matt Goodwin right and Aaron Bastani left both hate the same thing: centrist liberals. They just have different names for them. The left bang in about the neoliberal capitalist consensus or “late capitalism”, the right talk about the woke liberal establishment or “new elites”. Same people: the fabled blob.
Comments
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4
Besides that, the limited 'charm' of the phrase 'fizz' comes from it being a casual downplayed term for Champagne, because we're so rich and classy we just assume it's Champagne and we have it all the time. You lose that if you make it the official marque.
Yet again
Acquire Pithiness
@148grss It’s possible to be both centre-left and hard-nosed in defence of national interests, like Attlee, Truman, Wilson, Mitterrand. Our problem is the right spend their time cosplaying patriotism and the left don’t think there are national interests to defend.
Champagne isn’t some magic substance that can’t be made anywhere else, it is just a kind of sparkling wine made in a certain way. Methode champenoise. And it can absolutely be done in a trillion regions around the world
Ditto Cava, Prosecco, Stilton, Roquefort, any protected origin foodstuff; all it is, is a brand
But this shit works. The French are excellent at it. Does anyone believe their stupid Bresse chickens are better than other well farmed chickens? Not really, but the posh branding still impacts
So that’s what we do with English Fizz. First let it bloom, then let it get a cachet, then impose frankly arbitrary rules so as to give it exclusivity. Sorted
The quickest and easiest way to get homosexuality made illegal again, in the UK, is to import about 5m more Muslims with homophobic opinions. That would be enough, if these people caucus, to make a real impact on elections such that homosexuality is once more illegal, and the British Left won’t raise a peep of protest until it is far far too Iate
I'm guessing you weren't on the receiving end of a phone call from a councillor - not a shy and retiring individual by any stretch of the imagination - who'd been advised not to speak against a motion to council on Gaza because of the threat to him and his family of mob violence. I was.
The new Weald of Kent seat is going to be highly sought-after by prospective Conservative candidates.
"Rallings & Thrasher notional result 2019
Weald of Kent
Con 72.0%
Lab 14.1%
LD 10.1%
Green 3.9%"
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1449315/thread
Councils gambling on property was done for two simple reasons: desperation and right wing dick-waving. If you are Tory then having your council own a load of property sounds great (unless its homes in which case its bad). Until the value of the property drops or the cheap interest rates go and then you are bust.
The Bournemouth number sounds toppy, but we know that homelessness is endemic in some places and any reactive spending on emergency anything is very expensive. People are homeless because our economy is structurally broken. What we need to do is empower councils to build houses - but we can't do that any more as its communism or something.
Or to take a smaller example, Hotel Chocolat is rubbish chocolate - but has made its former owners quite wealthy. And that's French at second hand.
It is a real thing. I have friends. - of all ages - that have swallowed the red pill and then realised this. It is quite something to witness
I am not afraid of dying in a helicopter and I am not afraid of the experience. I have flown in and flown gliders including an aerobatics glider. I have flown in light aircraft. None of which gave me motion sickness. The only thing that did while flying was the Pitts Special and that was after 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls and a vertical climb. It prevented me from doing the loop de loop which I really wanted to do. We hung around to see if I would recover first, but I didn't. So the only thing I am not keen on is getting sick.
In terms of danger I assume the Pitts Special and the gliders are more dangerous (I once landed in a field when the winch launch went wrong) and I was not concerned about them and I am generally not concerned about dangerous type stuff as long as the right precautions have been taken (I have skied the Tortin, I have driven racing cars, I have sailed racing catamarans and even pitched poled one spectacularly and that didn't put me off).
I just don't want to feel sick, which was never a concern before I posted this morning.
For example, Peru. I know the place fairly well. On paper, pretty reactionary (1950s) social values. In actuality, the Peruvians I know, who immigrated, have instantly adopted the British "none-of-my-business-their-private-life" reaction to gay and trans people, have no qualms about abortion etc etc. Yet they were brought up to a rather different set of views at home.
Here's a fine article on Paul Giametti, who I think is pretty decent value on Betfair at the moment (and great).
https://slate.com/culture/2024/01/paul-giamatti-holdovers-oscars-2024-best-actor-sideways.html
Oppenheimer will probably get best film, but Cillian Murphy favourite for best actor ? Please.
The West Rim is a far inferior destination. If you want to "do" the GC, you have to go to the South Rim, walk along the rim trail a bit, ideally stay overnight to get sunset and maybe sunrise as well.
Pro tip - if you do end up going to South Rim, and you have a car and want somewhere quiet maybe even deserted to watch sunset, park up and walk in to Shoshone Point.
I still don’t like the word but it’s here now. Do young folk even talk about “fancy dress” any more?
And very opportune for me to repeat the story of a journalist going to fly as a passenger in some kind of fast jet with the RAF and being told to eat bananas beforehand for breakfast. When he asked whether this was for the health and/or potassium content he was told no, it is because bananas taste the same coming up as they do going down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIYQfyA_1Hc
(Good afternoon everyone)
And I recall it, so it's definitely memorable.
Islam is a much more tenacious mindset than late stage Catholicism or Buddhism or whatever. We can argue why that is - because Islam is superior? Possibly. Because Islam has blood curdling death statutes against apostasy? Also possible
But the fact is Muslim migrants are MUCH less likely to drop their religion and assimilate to secular liberal western values, and that means that if you import enough Muslims you have a determined, faithful, united minority which will - by sheer persistence (and occasional violence) - impose its views on the apathetic but secular majority
And, good for them, they believe what they believe, and that is their right. Trouble is it impinges on everyone else
We see this everywhere. It is not disputable now. So what do we do about it?
Edit: Clue. If you imported lots of American rednecks from certain, extremely poor, parts of Texas and couple of other states.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay
..The term "cosplay" is a Japanese portmanteau of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard after he attended the 1984 World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) in Los Angeles and saw costumed fans, which he later wrote about in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja]. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because that translates into Japanese as "an aristocratic costume", which did not match his experience of the Worldcon. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ)...
I also think the quality aspect is as important as the name, so shouldn't be an afterthought - perhaps the name should even stem from the judging criteria. How do we classify British/English wines as a whole, and judge quality? In France, you have the apellations, so a geographical designation, and 'Methode Champagnoise/Traditonelle' speak to the production method; in Germany it's all about how much sugar is in the grapes as to whether its a Prädikatswein or a Qualitätswein etc.. We don't have a massive wine making tradition here so the rules and names put in place now are about establishing success in the long term and creating the whole legand of British/English wine.
Should the judging of the sparkling wine even be marked by some sort of swanky 'fizz' quaffing event attended by the Royals? Let's say the successful sparkling wines were given a badge like 'Grand Cru' (obviously not that) - that's a designation that then potentially has legs to be a term for quality UK sparkling wine.
https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/whats-behind-the-growing-number-of-attacks-in-southern-thailand/
Local governments shouldn’t be engaging in speculation. And (IIRC) their borrowings are consolidated into the government borrowing figures.
And they are limited on the amount they can raise council tax.
I have mentioned here before how hate crimes against LGBT+ people have increased over the last decade and how the UK went from one of the safest countries in the EU and has now dropped to like 10th. Why? Well, in report after report the answer is government and media rhetoric attacking trans people, which in turn effects all LGBT+ people (because the expectations of hetero gender roles are enforced similarly for sexual attraction and gender presentation). And there is no evidence to suggest this violence is disproportionately being done by immigrant populations. The government has refused to deal with conversion therapy and, as always, the economic impacts of their policies disproportionately impact those who are already at risk. That’s why youth homelessness is a LGBT+ issue, with LGBT (and specifically trans young people) being disproportionately homeless.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/uk-falls-down-europes-lgbtq-rights-ranking-for-third-year-running
The same for women - the impacts of austerity (and much of the Thatcherite move away from state involvement) was a move to reaffirm the “traditional family”. As they are less likely to be the greater earner in a household, women have more pressure to stay in bad and abusive relationships. Many studies have shown these disproportionate impacts:
https://wbg.org.uk/blog/austerity-is-gender-based-violence/
This is why “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” is a lie - fiscal conservatism has social impacts. Who has a greater negative impact on my life as a queer man - the guy who runs my corner shop who came here from Pakistan a decade ago or the Etonians who run the country? I know the answer.
Like it
The finest vintages could be inEFfable.
It’s “English Sparkling Wine” or if you’re in Wales “Welsh sparkling wine”, or (thanks to Rathfinny) Sussex Sparkling wine in Sussex. To get PDO status and use those terms you have to conform to a few rules: only certain permitted varieties (there is an ongoing debate about whether to allow the hybrid Seyval Blanc), minimum alcohol level, made using traditional second fermentation in bottle, limited chaptalization.
There is a similar set of rules for the English Quality Wine PDO for still.
So I expect official nomenclature to remain as it is with some tweaks and probably more regional PDOs in due course (North Downs, South Downs, Weald, “Wessex”, Surrey Hills, Wye Valley and so on. English fizz seems increasingly to be the shorthand and I’d expect that to devolve into Kentish fizz, Wealden fizz etc.
Islam is the second biggest religion in the UK (if you don’t separate Christian into Catholic and protestant). 6.5% of the population in England and Wales (at the last census) are Muslim. This is not a group with significant political power to enforce their policy preferences, even if “creeping Sharia” were their preferred policy preferences.
(Btw for the avoidance of doubt, this isn’t what I want).
Foreign offer for a 2021 Vintage Leondamus Serpentine Perineum Tickler
There are good days and bad days. This is a good one, on Bassac Lane. I shall celebrate with an apposite bottle of Chat du Pape
I’ve seen a lot written about trying to calculate actual GDP numbers in Africa based on observable facts like street lights, for example.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/23/clean-cookstove-carbon-offsets-overstate-climate-benefit-by-1000-percent
Cabernet Sauv is a long way off. We can already grow and ripen the 4 Pinots, Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Cab Franc (just about), Albariño, Chasselas and Gamay(ish). I am attempting Melon de Bourgogne (Muscadet). Next stop is Riesling which stubbornly refuses to ripen here, then Chenin blanc, Syrah (not actually a hot climate grape despite reputation), then the Bordeaux reds Merlot CS and Malbec.
Cammo, and the minority of sensible Tory MPs, appreciated that being on the wrong, and losing, side of history would do them no favours. And credit for Mrs May for seeing this early on.
Or was until he wrote about "smoking ruins" of the tory party in telegraph last monday. Suspect he's been dropped a few places.
Even going back a few generations we have
Sunak - Right, neither liberal nor authoritarian
Truss - Right, not in office long enough to show liberal vs authoritarian
Johnson - Being generous - centre right, neither liberal nor authoritarian
May - Right, authoritarian
Cameron - Centre right, liberal
Brown - Left, authoritarian
Blair - Centrist, neither liberal nor authoritarian
Major - Centre right, neither liberal nor authoritarian
Thatcher - Right, neither liberal nor authoritarian
There aren't that many left liberals around in the first place and they have never had power here. Our default is centre right to right, neutral to authoritarian. Which to be fair is reflective of the country generally even if not to my taste.
2024 GE Blue Tory vs Red Tory
How depressing.
In fact, phrases like "neoliberal capitalist consensus" sort of show both why you don't think it's worth bothering to try and how you'd get it badly wrong if you did.