The public reject Rayner’s nasty insults – politicalbetting.com
The public reject Rayner’s nasty insults – politicalbetting.com
With Angela Rayner calling Rishi Sunak a "pint-sized loser", do Britons think it is acceptable to tease someone for being short?Acceptable: 26%Unacceptable: 67%https://t.co/GaMHY5UIwR pic.twitter.com/EnhYz0eivj
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Not what we need in politics.
FPT: I think video shows quite a few of the serious problems with the US road system - for example vehicles parked hard against almost all of the crosswalks preventing a clear view of and for pedestrians.
@AndyJS recently raised the intriguing prospect of TRUSS returning as Prime Minister, a bold yet tantalising prospect.
My consideration was whether she could become Thin Controllix of Great British Railways, as a midway station to her premiership, putting her back on track to Number 10.
No doubt PBers will have their own views.
What is Jeremy Hunt's game in the Bank of England reportedly 'selling at a loss'? Is he making the country take a hit artificially to make it seem that national debt is being reduced responsibly?
The former chancellor said quantitative easing, under which the Bank of England created £895bn of money to buy bonds, “was a necessary policy to get us out of the financial crash, and contributed to the fastest recovery of any G7 economy”.
He added that it was “not my responsibility” to oversee the present status of the scheme, which is costing the Exchequer tens of billions of pounds because of an agreement with the Bank that losses should be borne by the taxpayer.
The policy began in the financial crisis, holding down borrowing costs for the government, injecting liquidity into financial markets and, initially, making a profit for the Bank.
In 2012 Osborne transferred profits from the scheme to the Treasury, lowering the Exchequer’s borrowing requirements – but agreeing, as part of this deal, to also bear the weight of any losses in future.
However, higher interest rates and lower bond values mean the Bank is now losing money on the scheme.
As a result, in the past year the Treasury has transferred £44bn to the Bank to cover the losses. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects an overall net cost to the public purse of more than £100bn.
https://archive.ph/K1yKN
It's an interesting one, of course fundamentally it has to be wrong. However it is probably a category or so less wrong than race, sex or even weight, as whilst height does matter to a lot of things including self image through to earning potential, it tends to matter only a little.
I would place it in the somewhat unnacceptable category, and am certainly guilty of using it on occassion.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/13/rishi-sunak-looks-like-a-homunculus-this-may-stymie-his-leadership-ambitions/
Being tall is overrated.
Beyond that and it's too mean.
“The Honourable Lady has chosen personal invective. This means that she must agree completely on policy with my Honourable Friend the Prime Minister. If she would like to cross the floor, I think we can find her a space.”
Turn “Tory” Rayner into a meme.
She should in my view watch her language however.
Badge of pride, Shirley?
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/apr/27/and-now-for-the-pinchline-competition-crowns-worlds-funniest-crab-joke
“Man walks into a restaurant with a crab under his arm and says, ‘Do you make crab cakes?’ Manager answers, ‘Yes, we do.’ ‘Good,’ says the man, ‘because it’s his birthday.’”
Calling a fellow politician a name is different from a member of the public . Of more importance electorally is what happens with the police investigation into Rayner .
I think it’s unlikely we’ll hear anything before the locals as that would be seen as interfering with those elections and even the Tory stooge at MP might want to avoid that .
And:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/27/kristi-noem-trump-vp-book-killing-dog
'Later, the Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump group Wilson co-founded, released a short video ad.
Over shots of dogs looking lovable but acting rambunctiously, a solemn voice said: “Dog owners know our furry friends can be a lot to keep up with.
“But when those tough moments come, you have options. Shooting your dog in the face should not be one of them. And if you do happen to shoot your dog in the face, please, don’t write about it in your autobiography.
“This has been a public service announcement directed at any Republican who may be considering murdering their dog.”'
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1783956717891473559
Edit - I need to check Gaucho's dress code before I wear these.
You shouldn't use such insults so lavishly if you don't want to be called out on it.
Labour's polling lead 1 week before Local Elections:
2021: -7.2%
2022: +5.8%
2023: +15.3%
2024: +20.0%
So not only big gains expected from the bulk of the seats last contested 3 years ago, but also gains to be expected in those seats that were last up more recently, though not as dramatic.
Plus of course Tory losses to LibDems and Greens.
500 Tory losses looks like the benchmark.
Same thing really. They learn it at Eton and Oxford.
I was critiquing the behaviours of a group of "Guardianistas" in aggregate, who share certain political characteristics.
They are not remotely comparable, and well you know it.
She didn't learn the game at Oxford. At best, that means she's doing it slightly but revealingly wrong. At worst, she's an oik who shouldn't stray where she doesn't belong.
With this year being metro heavy and the metros being somewhat less swingy than the shires, if Labour extend that to +12, I'd be fairly content that all was well ahead of the GE.
The key to this is "if it worked" and as all the experts in every related field have pointed out - it can't work because structurally its bonkers.
You have linked the "deport them to Rwanda" policy as being opposed by a globalist cabal - the UN, charities, refugees - who apparently want refugees. So is their fear that every refugees globally might end up sent to Rwanda?
Lets just look at the asylum seekers in the UK. There's c. 100,000 already here, with more arriving every day in sizeable numbers. So call it 120,000 on the basis that "Rwanda works" and people stop arriving.
Rwanda can't take 120,000
We can't process 120,000 through the courts
We can't intern 120,000 prior to them going to court
We can't process the 120,000's applications due to a lack of money and resources in the Home Office
We can't keep track of 120,000 after booking their arrival. We lose them.
So the rather basic problem with you/Leon endlessly championing the policy is that the policy was written in crayon to appeal to morons. You two aren't morons, yet suck it up like you are.
Why?
Within the Commons and other deliberative bodies there are general rules of debate to prevent things becoming a pointless exercise in personal insult and posturing anyway.
Time to go bowling
Working class eateries are only concerned wtih feeding you, not how you appear.
Rageh Omaar: ITV host receiving medical care after becoming unwell live on air
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68910984
The trouble is jibes like this do stick, and Sunak rather like Major suffers from the perception he’s weak and liable to be bullied. No amount of talking tough on benefits scroungers or Rwanda can overcome that.
May got some of the same thing after 2017. Dead woman walking etc. It’s hugely damaging politically.
The dynamic was rather different with the next two. Boris never seemed weak, he just became more and more clearly a lying arsehole. He was still feared right up to the end. Truss’ weakness was of a different sort. She didn’t seem liable to bullying, indeed her thick skin is quite remarkable, rather she just seemed completely out of her depth.
But frankly it’s not just the chill, it’s the relentless cloud and rain.
Basically, any argument that boils down to They Should Just... is simplism. Especially when you don't specify who They are. Brexit ended up being about simplism- They Should Just give us the benefits of EU membership that we valued without the messy bits we disliked. They Should Just quarantine the vulnerable during the pandemic was another. Or, on the left, They Should Just get the rich to pay more tax. Or, in this case, They Should Just stop coming over here.
Trouble is, it's rarely as simple as Just Doing This. For taxes, it's totally fair to point out that if you overpluck the goose, it will fly away. That the nice bits about Europe depend on the messy plumbing. That the sausages are tasty but you don't want to see them being made.
I'm not going to blame voters for wanting a simpler world, or for voting for it. But it's blooming irresponsible for opinion formers or wannabe leaders to pretend they can deliver one.
For example, the Post Office should just have come clean a decade ago.
The mess would have still been complicated to sort out, but the decision itself would have been a simple one.
Occasionally “they should just” does get to the heart of the matter. Usually when politicians have been faffing around but you already know what the eventual outcome will be. I would venture a few exceptions to the anti-simplism rule
- They should just bloody build HS2
- They should just call a general election now
- They should just suspend / expel [name of politician who’s been caught doing something obviously dodgy]
In my experience those who work in the private sector are more likely to see opportunities, whereas those in the public sector are more likely to see risks. It makes sense, given taking a job in the private sector is inherently riskier, but generally better rewarded.
It is one of the main reasons why I abhor the growth of the role of the state. It tallies with a growth of risk aversion, stagnation and, ironically, the general enshittification (thanks @viewcode) of the common weal.
Lots of those who work for the state will opine about difficulties, or overemphasise the compilications.
It will have no impact on votes though.
Crime is a one example - simply make the consequences of doing crime a bit worse than the benefits of doing crime, and crime will fall. 'Oh that's far too simplistic' we're told - 'the reasons for crime are vastly complex, involving social issues, family breakdown, poverty, inequality etc., and we must reject 'simple solutions' and 'tackle those other issues''. So the simple solution is never applied.
The same is true of every other issue. I am all for trying a simple solution, it failing, and realising a more complex multilayered approach is needed. What I am not for is never trying that simple solution, for decades, because it's too simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgMcYaH05lE&t=16s
But a lot of the important questions are How questions. And simplism works by pretending that they don't exist.
Wall-to-wall sunshine in the Crozon peninsula, Brittany. And warm
I’m having a cappuccino and the traditional Breton cake, the “koign amman”
Unlike the cider, and even the crepe, I can’t recommend the “koign amman”
It’s some pastry apparently dipped in thick liquid sugar then deep fried. Intensely sweet and cracks your teeth, just about tolerable if you dip it in your coffee. Maybe
Is it bad (or good) that I now think in centimetres for height (I'm trying to shake off imperial in almost everything now - thinking in kg for weight....)?
In Glasgow, wee man is a pretty neutral, even affectionate, term.
I do think the stats show some fairly simple answers to vast swathes of crime. Tightening up security, making it harder to nick stuff, and ensuring criminals actually get caught by following up on reports, all shown time and time again to work. Why did everyone start stealing Land Rovers? Because their security was shit.