It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
That is delusional nonsense! It is about ensuring that staff behave according to the law of the land in terms of equalities legislation.
I think what a lot of PB Tories really mean is that they find it boring to sit through ?
I would have thought outside the terminally keen most people find the various mandatory training programs that HR departments insist upon to be tedious. I may have been exposed to the more egregious DEI stuff because if it were simply about legal compliance then fine, however the ones I’ve been forced to sit through were very heavy on the implication that unless you think this way you are some form of moral degenerate.
Missed the debate last night. We were supposed to go out, got caught in a downpour on the way to the station. Came home. Dried off. Drank a bottle of my 13% cider and fell asleep. However social media tells me the winner was the person from the party the poster most supports. Any impartial views on the debate ? I saw a poll by more in common had Farage as the winner.
Farage was the “winner” according to the poll, but Flynn, Denyer and Cooper did the best job according to the same poll.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
For one mind-boggling moment I thought you meant the latest Tory wheeze was to abolish Northern Ireland.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
Peter Bowles was in TTMB with Penelope Richard Briars was in the Good Life with Penelope
I know! Schoolboy error from me. Trying to wind up Heathener who is somehow about 70 and 17 at the same time. It’s not like To The Manor Born is an obscure TV series. It’s one from the classics of the age, and as has been said, both stands up well AND is an interesting social/historical commentary.
Funnily enough most people who know me in real life, as opposed to on here, mark me as typical GenZ in outlook and views. Which I take as a compliment.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
That is delusional nonsense! It is about ensuring that staff behave according to the law of the land in terms of equalities legislation.
I think what a lot of PB Tories really mean is that they find it boring to sit through ?
I would have thought outside the terminally keen most people find the various mandatory training programs that HR departments insist upon to be tedious. I may have been exposed to the more egregious DEI stuff because if it were simply about legal compliance then fine, however the ones I’ve been forced to sit through were very heavy on the implication that unless you think this way you are some form of moral degenerate.
I know I'm a moral degenerate, so does that mean I can skip the training?
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
That is seriously risky. Could lose almost all of their remaining vote - pensioners and those with significant unearned income, who will immediately clock that this means an increase in income tax.
I'm increasingly sad that some of the most dangerous policies also happen to be the best ones, if implemented correctly. NICs replacement, social care reform, large infrastructure projects, even National Service.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
It’s all Newspeak designed to browbeat people into conforming with some of the most ludicrous anti-logical dross ever dreamed up by the mind of man. Orwell would have a field day with the modern world. The gendered left have taken 1984 not as the warning it is but as a ‘how to’ guide.
That is delusional nonsense! It is about ensuring that staff behave according to the law of the land in terms of equalities legislation.
I think what a lot of PB Tories really mean is that they find it boring to sit through ?
I would have thought outside the terminally keen most people find the various mandatory training programs that HR departments insist upon to be tedious. I may have been exposed to the more egregious DEI stuff because if it were simply about legal compliance then fine, however the ones I’ve been forced to sit through were very heavy on the implication that unless you think this way you are some form of moral degenerate.
That’s the point - much institutional training is boring. But trainers are less bored by it as it’s a job they’ve chosen.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
Missed the debate last night. We were supposed to go out, got caught in a downpour on the way to the station. Came home. Dried off. Drank a bottle of my 13% cider and fell asleep. However social media tells me the winner was the person from the party the poster most supports. Any impartial views on the debate ? I saw a poll by more in common had Farage as the winner.
I'm anything but impartial but will have a go.
Farage went almost exclusively after Mordaunt, butted into every exchange, said exactly what you expect him to say, he got applause for his affirmation of stop and search. If you're in the market for what he's selling then he delivered so not surprised that he won the debate in the eyes of 25% of the public.
Rayner didn't really shine in my view but she only took one bad hit from Flynn. She combatted Mordaunt's attacks very well. Surprised she was the 2nd favourite by the More in Common poll but Labour will be happy with her performance.
Mordaunt pretty much ignored Farage and just went after Rayner. She made sure to mention that she came from Portsmouth, threw Sunak a little bit towards the bus on D-Day, held the line on the Labour £2,000 well despite audience skepticism. I think she did okay given the record she had to defend but can see how helpful Tories might have been disappointed.
Flynn went only against Rayner and skewered her with the "Where's the money going to come from?" question which Rayner (and Labour) doesn't have a good answer for. There was another bout over GB Energy which Flynn portrayed as taking Scottish jobs but that was messy and I don't think there was a clear winner out of that.
Denyer was okay, said all the things you expect a Green to say, remembered to name check Bristol a couple of times, had maybe the best one liner when she said "That was very dignified" after a very heated Rayner v Mordaunt argument.
Cooper I felt did better than the MiC poll suggested, she set out the Lib Dem platform pretty good and when there was a question on broken promises and the tuition fees promise came up she accepted it was a bad thing that the Lib Dems had done.
ap Iowerth didn't really do much, I can only remember him joining in with Mordaunt's attack on Welsh Labour's management of the NHS. Seemed statesmanlike enough which is probably all he needed to be, think that next Senedd elections he would make mincemeat out of Gething if Gething gets that far.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
Yes, but how many young people watch BBC on Tuesday evenings?
I haven't watched live TV in years. My kids pretty much never have and probably never will.
It might be just me, but I somehow had the idea that Heathener is in her later years, but that may be wrong. Her story is often rather inconsistent.
Everyone knows Heathener lies in a vain attempt to be taken seriously on here, and the form of those lies varies depending on what's most convenient to her to use at the time.
Everyone.
Ah there you go again, slipping straight back to your Ad Hominem with your infamous ‘everyone’ line which is borne of your own insecurities and Alpha dogging.
You are a deeply unpleasant person who is both 1. out of touch and 2. damaging the Conservative cause. People I know who look at this site, see what you post, and just think ‘eww’.
p.s. 20 people liked one of my posts the other day so clearly not everyone agrees with your everyone lol
You are disingenuous, sanctimonious and make the political personal, whilst crying blue murder over anyone who responds in kind.
That's why I don't respect you. You think only you should be allowed to do it, and it's entirely justified because you think your politics are pure and right.
However, you are also highly insecure and desperate for attention, so for that you have my sympathy.
Anyhooo, it’ll be interesting to see the polls post D-Day. I’m guessing that ones out tonight, if there are any, will just about have caught the reaction?
What do we think? A further rise for Reform and drop in Con (poss Lab) support? Or little impact?
I await with interest.
My guess is not much shift. Minds are broadly made up.
I think so too
Same happened in '97. There was no cut through during the election campaign ALTHOUGH the polls did start to narrow about 2 weeks out.
Do we think there's any chance now of this happening? Or has the tory brand been well and truly f*cked?
It may go the other way and their slide continues. Who wants to back a loser?
I don’t think the polls will do much now to be honest. The two keys to garnering votes cast is attractiveness and propensity. The Tories always started at a disadvantage in attractiveness given what has gone on and length of time in office. What they needed was to impact that at the margins but dial up the propensity to vote of those attracted to them. This is the essence of the core vote approach give your minimal support sufficient reason to bother.
The problem with this campaign is that the scatter gun policy approach is not doing anything at the margins and the D-Day screwup has meant even core Tories are disinclined to get out and vote. This is a disaster bordering on a catastrophe.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
well since Reeves is clinging limpet like to Hunts plans thats also a Labour £3018 tax rise.
And then on top there will be Labour's own tax rises. Reeves reported to be looking at 12 additional rises.
Quite so. As @DavidL and I have often pointed out, all the major parties are in denial about tax, spend and deficit. Or at least that is what they express to voters, they may well be deluding themselves, or simply lying.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
For one mind-boggling moment I thought you meant the latest Tory wheeze was to abolish Northern Ireland.
That was in essence their Brexit policy last time.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
I can full believe that, and you have my sympathies.
But, DEI is entirely the wrong way to do it. It's about corporate and individual narcissism, not about you.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
I have never been lectured that I should feel a sense of shame for who I am. Maybe your company just has poor training.
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
Yes, funny, but perfectly possible.
This Site has an extraordinarily wide range of contributors, geographically as well as politically, but you may well be our first Malaysian expat.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this can all be encapsulated in 'voting intention' - particularly when there is no credible/significant 'right wing' option.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
You need to be able to cite some counter evidence. For example polling on Trans rights shows a lot more support amongst the young, and little concern about immigration amongst them either.
See page 29 here for example in the Ipsos issues survey for March this year. 6% of 18-24 are concerned by immigration compared to 45% of the over 65's.
Obviously there is a small minority of far right youngsters, though even Yaxley-Lennons fellow marchers look Gen X, there are a few youngsters there too.
Trans and Gaza is mainly just following the crowd on TikTok though. Probably immigration too.
Immigration is a massive issue amongst European youth, and I can't believe they're fundamentally different.
They should. Farage is catnip to the Red Wall. Much like St Boris was in 2019. If the Tories really are in the state of freefall everyone on here ( except Alanbrooke and myself believe) Reform could do very well in percentage votes. How that translates into seats is a trickier conundrum.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
For one mind-boggling moment I thought you meant the latest Tory wheeze was to abolish Northern Ireland.
Didn't they already try that with Johnson's "oven ready for the microwave" deal?
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
How things are framed makes a big difference too: if you say "some people face discrimination because [x]", you will find the audience a lot more receptive than if you say "some people are privileged because [y]"
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
Yes, funny, but perfectly possible.
This Site has an extraordinarily wide range of contributors, geographically as well as politically, but you may well be our first Malaysian expat.
Welcome.
Thanks - I’ve actually been back in the UK 6 years but set up my account when I was an expat in Malaysia! I’m working on the LD campaign in Maidenhead… even without a Reform candidate - the canvass numbers look really close… between us and the parachuted in Tory - tactical squeeze of Labour needed.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
Buy that's just as bad, since it's not done to instruct employees in an effective way if so, as that is not the primary purpose, hence why the other standard approach besides a lecture is something bland and without much practical value.
I'd say it's a mixture, since those delivering it are usually passionate about a message, whilst the organisation is just ticking a box to cover their arse, as you point out, and would probably be content with anything.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
Casino Royale is, I’m afraid, a rather nasty piece of work.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m 'full of shit' but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online, as others have also experienced on here.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
My guess is that 20% or so would be the tipping point for Reform, where they would win seats in large numbers.
I feel like Farage actually wouldn't want that. There'll be a lot of crazies in his candidates, just because the bar for being a Reform candidate is so low, and let's face it, they haven't exactly spent the last year weeding out the obvious flat-earthers/anti-vaxxers.
If Reform do too well the spotlight will shine on this, and based upon what happened to Pauline Hanson in Australia back in her first iteration, you don't want that to happen.
Far better that Reform don't win more than a few seats, the Tories get mostly wiped out and Farage can do his reverse takeover without people pointing out the calibre of who are doing the takeover.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
Casino Royale is a nasty piece of work I’m afraid.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m full of shit but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
Lol. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
You need a better response that just throwing around "nasty" and "unpleasant", I'm afraid.
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yes, just like National Service was going to be a game-changer and the only reason PB_Lefties were upset was because we knew it would gain the Tories massive votes. Then it was Triple Lock Plus, then the £2,000, and the private schools VAT. Maybe you'll be right and Farage's abolish the NHS plan might be wildly popular, we'll see.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
Buy that's just as bad, since it's not done to instruct employees in an effective way if so, as that is not the primary purpose, hence why the other standard approach besides a lecture is something bland and without much practical value.
I'd say it's a mixture, since those delivering it are usually passionate about a message, whilst the organisation is just ticking a box to cover their arse, as you point out, and would probably be content with anything.
My guess is that 20% or so would be the tipping point for Reform, where they would win seats in large numbers.
I feel like Farage actually wouldn't want that. There'll be a lot of crazies in his candidates, just because the bar for being a Reform candidate is so low, and let's face it, they haven't exactly spent the last year weeding out the obvious flat-earthers/anti-vaxxers.
If Reform do too well the spotlight will shine on this, and based upon what happened to Pauline Hanson in Australia back in her first iteration, you don't want that to happen.
Far better that Reform don't win more than a few seats, the Tories get mostly wiped out and Farage can do his reverse takeover without people pointing out the calibre of who are doing the takeover.
They haven't even managed to weed out the "can't be bothered to go down to the town hall to hand in their nomination papers" though I guess they weeded themselves out.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
I'm not so sure. The same people would just turn up in an alternative. The only thing that could convince me otherwise is the culture.
There's something about the class, confidence and brand of the Conservatives that makes them doubt their own convictions and not deliver on them.
This isn't the case in other anglophone equivalents.
It was a relief to see that Reform managed to put up a candidate at the last minute in my constituency of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. It should help the LD to win and bring in my bet at 7/1 [currently 9/2 and still value].
One has the impression he scribbled his statement hurriedly before the deadline. I think he's about 15.
Here it is:
'We, unfortunately, lost our seat in Barnwood and only lost by 3 votes In podsmead, it was a great campaign and it just proves us residents wont be taken for granted we won't take anymore!
Next year in 2021 the conservatives will come back harder and we will win! I understand how the election was so close between us and the liberals possibily over brexit! I am a Brexiteer and we must respect democracy deliver Brexit and the conservatives will be on the up!
I would like to say thank you to the 200 people that voted for me it was an honour at such a young age to receive so much support I will continue to help podsmead residents and never let them down I am passionate hardworking reliable and won't let residents down.
2021 here the conservatives come!
Podsmead will soon understand how much it means to have a councillor who lives in the area.
F1: wet in Canada, may well be the same for qualifying and the race. Hopefully that makes it dramatic and exciting rather than just getting rained off.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
My guess is that 20% or so would be the tipping point for Reform, where they would win seats in large numbers.
I feel like Farage actually wouldn't want that. There'll be a lot of crazies in his candidates, just because the bar for being a Reform candidate is so low, and let's face it, they haven't exactly spent the last year weeding out the obvious flat-earthers/anti-vaxxers.
If Reform do too well the spotlight will shine on this, and based upon what happened to Pauline Hanson in Australia back in her first iteration, you don't want that to happen.
Far better that Reform don't win more than a few seats, the Tories get mostly wiped out and Farage can do his reverse takeover without people pointing out the calibre of who are doing the takeover.
I think Farage would take that with outstretched hands. It is a stepping stone should Labour fail (assuming they win).
The media were blowing smoke up Rishi's nether regions to big up the story of the election being close until last week. Since Farage re-entered the fray the Right-wing media seem to believe the bigger story is the latest Farage vehicle usurping the Tories. This is very worrying.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
well since Reeves is clinging limpet like to Hunts plans thats also a Labour £3018 tax rise.
And then on top there will be Labour's own tax rises. Reeves reported to be looking at 12 additional rises.
That's why the £2,000 Labour tax-rise resonates - we all know it's going to be true.
The only inaccuracy is that it's an underestimate.
I find this election more dishonest than usual. the parties are chucking out gimmicks to fill air time and not actually addressing the major issues we face. The economy, housing, health care.
It may change when manifestos are released, but I doubt it.
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
Yes, funny, but perfectly possible.
This Site has an extraordinarily wide range of contributors, geographically as well as politically, but you may well be our first Malaysian expat.
Welcome.
Thanks - I’ve actually been back in the UK 6 years but set up my account when I was an expat in Malaysia! I’m working on the LD campaign in Maidenhead… even without a Reform candidate - the canvass numbers look really close… between us and the parachuted in Tory - tactical squeeze of Labour needed.
At my WI BBQ last night (an annual event with partners allowed) there wasn't much politics discussed but the local Tory Councillor (who is a stalwart and formidable local figure) looked rather down beat, our LD Councillor rather upbeat. Harborough, Oadby and Wigston feedback is that Neil O'brien is struggling and finding little support.
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yes, just like National Service was going to be a game-changer and the only reason PB_Lefties were upset was because we knew it would gain the Tories massive votes. Then it was Triple Lock Plus, then the £2,000, and the private schools VAT. Maybe you'll be right and Farage's abolish the NHS plan might be wildly popular, we'll see.
I was talking about Reform.
Those policies did resonate much better in the polling that virtually everyone on her argued, and I was right about that, but what i got wrong was just how crippling the dead hand of Rishi and the toxic brand he carries would be.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
No, the Conservatives need a massive overhaul for sure. I’m also sceptical that Farage Reform maps to the Canadian version in anything but name. I also don’t believe that even those Tories supportive of Nige would actually be on board with what he would actually do, presuming you can get him to be consistent on anything for longer than a few news cycles.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
What it does mean is that HR departments can justify their existence and then take other employees time away from productive activities to try to indoctrinate them into the hive mind.
No, DEI training is mostly defensive. So if one of my Trusts staff acts or speaks in a non-inclusive way to other staff or patients they can be appropriately disciplined. They cannot defend themselves by claiming to be unaware of the Equalities Act etc.
Like a lot of HR policy it is about being a step or two ahead of a miscreant, and anticipating their excuse.
Buy that's just as bad, since it's not done to instruct employees in an effective way if so, as that is not the primary purpose, hence why the other standard approach besides a lecture is something bland and without much practical value.
I'd say it's a mixture, since those delivering it are usually passionate about a message, whilst the organisation is just ticking a box to cover their arse, as you point out, and would probably be content with anything.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
Except it hasn't really disappeared.
Instead it forms part of the Conservative Party of Canada which was created by the merger of the Canadian Tories and the successor to the Canadian Reform party in 2003.
The Conservative Party of Canada now leads Trudeau's governing Reform Party in current Canadian polls
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this can all be encapsulated in 'voting intention' - particularly when there is no credible/significant 'right wing' option.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
You need to be able to cite some counter evidence. For example polling on Trans rights shows a lot more support amongst the young, and little concern about immigration amongst them either.
See page 29 here for example in the Ipsos issues survey for March this year. 6% of 18-24 are concerned by immigration compared to 45% of the over 65's.
Obviously there is a small minority of far right youngsters, though even Yaxley-Lennons fellow marchers look Gen X, there are a few youngsters there too.
Trans and Gaza is mainly just following the crowd on TikTok though. Probably immigration too.
Immigration is a massive issue amongst European youth, and I can't believe they're fundamentally different.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
In my experience young people are perfectly OK, and sometimes actually a little bit Woke-cynical, but they are quite anti-Tory - particularly young women.
Mainly, they will respectfully listen to an alternative argument. I'm not convinced there's anything innately leftwing about them.
The worst are actually older men who have a different view on Brexit. I've seen those get genuinely angry, even in person, so now I steer clear.
The thing I would observe about Gen Z is that they are ultra sensitive about being offensive or being offended, to the point where they have no sense of humour. It is actually quite pathetic.
Sort of but we see the same from a handful of regular posters on here, who are much older. GenZ main thing I notice - at work- is that some of them are not really willing to put themselves out to do something if they don't really fancy it, and are quite picky, which makes staffing some jobs hard.
Generally, it's social media I worry about most because I can't talk to enough of them often enough and fast enough than TikTok can.
Speaking as a Boomer, it feels like there's a lot of 'the youth of today, eh?' going on here.
'Twas ever thus: oldies think the younger generations have gone to pot.
One phenomenon I would observe is as follows:
The 'youth of today' assumptions are very common amongst older left wing posters, who imagine themselves to be countercultural, rather than part of the status quo.
They assume that young people are going to be left wing like themselves, because 'young people are always left wing', but there is actually increasing evidence that young people are being drawn to the far right.
The response is that they must be stopped, banned, outlawed etc. But of course this is just throwing petrol on to the fire: it just increases the appeal of the 'far right'.
This website is becoming increasingly dominated by posters falling in to the above category. They are failing to see the paradigm shift that is taking place across Europe and the US, and which is likely to follow, at least to some degree, in the UK.
I really don't think that in Britain young people are drawn to the "Far Right".
In the latest Yougov for example 11% under 24 and 12% 25-49 said they support Reform, compared to 55% and 51% Labour in those ages.
The Reform vote is dominated by CDE Brexit voting pensioners in the Midlands and North. It isn't a youth movement.
The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this can all be encapsulated in 'voting intention' - particularly when there is no credible/significant 'right wing' option.
You can still vote for labour and not go with the dominant left wing view on cultural issues (ie trans stuff, hate speech, migrant rights) etc. I don't think I am typical in any way, but certainly that is my position. I think that Starmer perceives this issue correctly and it explains why he has gone to such effort to neutralise the labour party position on this stuff.
You need to be able to cite some counter evidence. For example polling on Trans rights shows a lot more support amongst the young, and little concern about immigration amongst them either.
See page 29 here for example in the Ipsos issues survey for March this year. 6% of 18-24 are concerned by immigration compared to 45% of the over 65's.
Obviously there is a small minority of far right youngsters, though even Yaxley-Lennons fellow marchers look Gen X, there are a few youngsters there too.
Trans and Gaza is mainly just following the crowd on TikTok though. Probably immigration too.
Immigration is a massive issue amongst European youth, and I can't believe they're fundamentally different.
Even on Gaza, “don’t know” is the most common position among younger voters. And pretty large majorities among all age cohorts over 25 opposed the Scottish government’s gender reforms.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
Peter Bowles was in TTMB with Penelope Richard Briars was in the Good Life with Penelope
I know! Schoolboy error from me. Trying to wind up Heathener who is somehow about 70 and 17 at the same time. It’s not like To The Manor Born is an obscure TV series. It’s one from the classics of the age, and as has been said, both stands up well AND is an interesting social/historical commentary.
I can't drag anyone for not knowing a series that is considered a classic. I'd never seen Seinfeld until recently. It was ok.
But the point is you had heard of it.
Sure, but I'd also argue that Seinfeld was a bigger phenomenon than TTMB.
Not in the U.K. The final episode was watched by 27 million viewers. Twenty-seven million.
That's surprising. Fair play I suppose. Puts the various political debates into perspective.
The last episode of Series One was the biggest non live TV audience in the whole 1970s. That one was 24 million.
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yes, just like National Service was going to be a game-changer and the only reason PB_Lefties were upset was because we knew it would gain the Tories massive votes. Then it was Triple Lock Plus, then the £2,000, and the private schools VAT. Maybe you'll be right and Farage's abolish the NHS plan might be wildly popular, we'll see.
I was talking about Reform.
Those policies did resonate much better in the polling that virtually everyone on her argued, and I was right about that, but what i got wrong was just how crippling the dead hand of Rishi and the toxic brand he carries would be.
With respect, that sounds a lot like what my colleagues said about the Labour campaign of GE19, that all Corbyn's policies (like nationalisation of the railways) polled well, it was only the package which meant they weren't accepted. I'm not sure that it was true for the left last time, I'm equally skeptical that it's true of the right this time.
Penny Mordaunt is hectoring and constantly interrupting. Really hope she loses her seat. Ghastly woman.
Less of the misogyny please, referring to her sex as a derogatory point is beneath you. You could have said “ghastly person” but ghastly woman is so loaded with some retro sexist memories of “to the manor born” and all that.
I like how all the OnlyFans references were ok but "ghastly woman" was somehow noteworthy
I was being ever so serious. Heathener is suitably strong, apparently accomplished and confident to give it out and take it back - it would probs be more sexist to think anyone had to rein it in because she’s a she.
Yeah I don’t have a problem with you calling it out. But what is to the manor born?
Really? Penelope Kieth, Richard Bowles? Huge in the late 1970s.
I don’t know who they are. Before my time.
The 1970’s are half a century ago
I know the phrase ‘to the manner born’
Do you only know about things that have happened in your lifetime?
Most people know things that happened in their lifetime better, yes.
I know To the Manor Born as it was still getting repeated in the 90s when I was a teen, but I wouldn't expect anyone younger than me to know it.
It's sometimes shown on BBC2 on Tuesday evenings along with Yes Minister.
Yes, but how many young people watch BBC on Tuesday evenings?
I haven't watched live TV in years. My kids pretty much never have and probably never will.
It might be just me, but I somehow had the idea that Heathener is in her later years, but that may be wrong. Her story is often rather inconsistent.
Everyone knows Heathener lies in a vain attempt to be taken seriously on here, and the form of those lies varies depending on what's most convenient to her to use at the time.
Everyone.
Ah there you go again, slipping straight back to your Ad Hominem with your infamous ‘everyone’ line which is borne of your own insecurities and Alpha dogging.
You are a deeply unpleasant person who is both 1. out of touch and 2. damaging the Conservative cause. People I know who look at this site, see what you post, and just think ‘eww’.
p.s. 20 people liked one of my posts the other day so clearly not everyone agrees with your everyone lol
You are disingenuous, sanctimonious and make the political personal, whilst crying blue murder over anyone who responds in kind.
That's why I don't respect you. You think only you should be allowed to do it, and it's entirely justified because you think your politics are pure and right.
However, you are also highly insecure and desperate for attention, so for that you have my sympathy.
I've come on this site to follow the UK General Election. Every day I see you throwing vitriol at this person.
Can you leave your personal vendetta against her for some other forum please? You are totally spoiling this place for me and I suspect others.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Morning all. The LOL result of course is Tories hold the Blue Wall, Farage storms the Red, Labour end up short by a few. Looking at Norwich South, Glorious George and the SDP have abandoned me, ive ruled out the English four leaving me The Party of Women or Reform. I dont see myself as a modern day Suffragette so, reluctantly, chalk up one for big stupid Nigel here.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
Casino Royale is, I’m afraid, a rather nasty piece of work.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m 'full of shit' but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online, as others have also experienced on here.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
Heathener, if you were a rabid right-winger the PB faithful would be lapping up your every word, cf @Leon .
Your problem is not your colourful backstory but the colour of your rosette. You are also quite hubristic which makes them angry. Only they are allowed to say "suck it up Remainer losers", "Captain Hindsight can never win an election" and "Boris will be a four term Churchillian PM, he got all the big calls right".
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yeah, that old cliche. Beloved of Stuart Campbell of the Bath region of Scottish Separatists.
Still, as (Roger Moore) James Bond accurately opined
"We all get our jollies one way or another."
But, Reform could dip their vote to 39.5% and steal a few seats from them, as well as open up a new medium-term strategic threat.
SKS absolutely doesn't want that.
Oh, I don't know. I believe Farage's plan is to takeover the Conservatives. He is following the Canada 1993 model openly, down to his party name. I'm on the fence about whether this will work - before Trump I'd say not, but today I wouldn't bet against the 'Establishment' falling in lockstep behind him like the Republicans have done in the US.
It just feels weird that a party that has existed and dominated for, what, 190 years? could fall so easily.
It was a relief to see that Reform managed to put up a candidate at the last minute in my constituency of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. It should help the LD to win and bring in my bet at 7/1 [currently 9/2 and still value].
One has the impression he scribbled his statement hurriedly before the deadline. I think he's about 15.
Here it is:
'We, unfortunately, lost our seat in Barnwood and only lost by 3 votes In podsmead, it was a great campaign and it just proves us residents wont be taken for granted we won't take anymore!
Next year in 2021 the conservatives will come back harder and we will win! I understand how the election was so close between us and the liberals possibily over brexit! I am a Brexiteer and we must respect democracy deliver Brexit and the conservatives will be on the up!
I would like to say thank you to the 200 people that voted for me it was an honour at such a young age to receive so much support I will continue to help podsmead residents and never let them down I am passionate hardworking reliable and won't let residents down.
2021 here the conservatives come!
Podsmead will soon understand how much it means to have a councillor who lives in the area.
Once again thank you.
Byron'
Here in Stratford upon Avon we have the prospect of a split LD vote. The former mayor of Stratford (LD) is standing as an independent.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
Casino Royale is a nasty piece of work I’m afraid.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m full of shit but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
Lol. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
You need a better response that just throwing around "nasty" and "unpleasant", I'm afraid.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
Except it hasn't really disappeared.
Instead it forms part of the Conservative Party of Canada which was created by the merger of the Canadian Tories and the successor to the Canadian Reform party in 2003.
The Conservative Party of Canada now leads Trudeau's governing Reform Party in current Canadian polls
There was not much left of the PC’s though, when they merged.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
well since Reeves is clinging limpet like to Hunts plans thats also a Labour £3018 tax rise.
And then on top there will be Labour's own tax rises. Reeves reported to be looking at 12 additional rises.
That's why the £2,000 Labour tax-rise resonates - we all know it's going to be true.
The only inaccuracy is that it's an underestimate.
I find this election more dishonest than usual. the parties are chucking out gimmicks to fill air time and not actually addressing the major issues we face. The economy, housing, health care.
It may change when manifestos are released, but I doubt it.
Yes - and when is this? Still cannot find a date from the major parties other than ‘before the election’ (duh really?).
Normally I am happy just to point out value, but in this case I am actually going to be very disappointed if it doesn't come in. As Eek pointed out yesterday, the Labour candidate is little more than token. She definitely shouldn't be second in the betting. I'm expecting her to come a distant third. [She could even finish fourth behind RefUk.]
Nobody can guarantee a winner, but I do promise you those odds are wrong. If you got 9/2 or better, you've done ok.
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yes, just like National Service was going to be a game-changer and the only reason PB_Lefties were upset was because we knew it would gain the Tories massive votes. Then it was Triple Lock Plus, then the £2,000, and the private schools VAT. Maybe you'll be right and Farage's abolish the NHS plan might be wildly popular, we'll see.
I was talking about Reform.
Those policies did resonate much better in the polling that virtually everyone on her argued, and I was right about that, but what i got wrong was just how crippling the dead hand of Rishi and the toxic brand he carries would be.
With respect, that sounds a lot like what my colleagues said about the Labour campaign of GE19, that all Corbyn's policies (like nationalisation of the railways) polled well, it was only the package which meant they weren't accepted. I'm not sure that it was true for the left last time, I'm equally skeptical that it's true of the right this time.
Missed the debate last night. We were supposed to go out, got caught in a downpour on the way to the station. Came home. Dried off. Drank a bottle of my 13% cider and fell asleep. However social media tells me the winner was the person from the party the poster most supports. Any impartial views on the debate ? I saw a poll by more in common had Farage as the winner.
I'm anything but impartial but will have a go.
Farage went almost exclusively after Mordaunt, butted into every exchange, said exactly what you expect him to say, he got applause for his affirmation of stop and search. If you're in the market for what he's selling then he delivered so not surprised that he won the debate in the eyes of 25% of the public.
Rayner didn't really shine in my view but she only took one bad hit from Flynn. She combatted Mordaunt's attacks very well. Surprised she was the 2nd favourite by the More in Common poll but Labour will be happy with her performance.
Mordaunt pretty much ignored Farage and just went after Rayner. She made sure to mention that she came from Portsmouth, threw Sunak a little bit towards the bus on D-Day, held the line on the Labour £2,000 well despite audience skepticism. I think she did okay given the record she had to defend but can see how helpful Tories might have been disappointed.
Flynn went only against Rayner and skewered her with the "Where's the money going to come from?" question which Rayner (and Labour) doesn't have a good answer for. There was another bout over GB Energy which Flynn portrayed as taking Scottish jobs but that was messy and I don't think there was a clear winner out of that.
Denyer was okay, said all the things you expect a Green to say, remembered to name check Bristol a couple of times, had maybe the best one liner when she said "That was very dignified" after a very heated Rayner v Mordaunt argument.
Cooper I felt did better than the MiC poll suggested, she set out the Lib Dem platform pretty good and when there was a question on broken promises and the tuition fees promise came up she accepted it was a bad thing that the Lib Dems had done.
ap Iowerth didn't really do much, I can only remember him joining in with Mordaunt's attack on Welsh Labour's management of the NHS. Seemed statesmanlike enough which is probably all he needed to be, think that next Senedd elections he would make mincemeat out of Gething if Gething gets that far.
I think this is a good summary. My biggest takeaway was who attacked who. Very noticeable that Mordaunt only interrupted Rayner. Farage only went after Mordaunt etc. I thought the most significant part was Penny’s apology for the D-day issue, which didn’t reflect well on the PM.
Sunak’s problem is that he comes over as a figure of fun. The Conservatives’ problem is that they stopped representing any section of the voters, as the header says. Is it best for the British Right if the Conservatives now vanish from the stage like their Canadian counterparts in 1993?
Except they haven't really disappeared.
Instead they form part of the Conservative Party of Canada which was created by the merger of the Canadian Tories and the successor to the Canadian Reform party in 2003.
The Conservative Party of Canada now leads Trudeau's governing Reform Party in current Canadian polls
Apologies now lead Trudeau's governing Liberal party
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Speaking as somebody who suffered (insidious, usually unintentional) discrimination in the past, I'm all for it DEI.
Casino Royale is, I’m afraid, a rather nasty piece of work.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m 'full of shit' but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online, as others have also experienced on here.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
Heathener, if you were a rabid right-winger the PB faithful would be lapping up your every word, cf @Leon .
Your problem is not your colourful backstory but the colour of your rosette. You are also quite hubristic which makes them angry. Only they are allowed to say "suck it up Remainer losers", "Captain Hindsight can never win an election" and "Boris will be a four term Churchillian PM, he got all the big calls right".
How come I don't have a problem (usually) with you, Ben, Gallowgate, OLB, OKC or Jonathan then? And even Horse has ironed himself out recently?
There a handful of Left-wing posters I do, but not the sensible ones.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Yep - first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
Yeah, that old cliche. Beloved of Stuart Campbell of the Bath region of Scottish Separatists.
Still, as (Roger Moore) James Bond accurately opined
"We all get our jollies one way or another."
But, Reform could dip their vote to 39.5% and steal a few seats from them, as well as open up a new medium-term strategic threat.
SKS absolutely doesn't want that.
Oh, I don't know. I believe Farage's plan is to takeover the Conservatives. He is following the Canada 1993 model openly, down to his party name. I'm on the fence about whether this will work - before Trump I'd say not, but today I wouldn't bet against the 'Establishment' falling in lockstep behind him like the Republicans have done in the US.
It just feels weird that a party that has existed and dominated for, what, 190 years? could fall so easily.
We will need to see how its vote holds up with eroded foundations. As the share declines, what happens to efficiency of whats left is a key considerstion
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Well indeed. The obvious question to Tory politicians is what further tax rises to make up the shortfall have they got planned above the increased tax bill of £3 018 already planned for the next parliament.
well since Reeves is clinging limpet like to Hunts plans thats also a Labour £3018 tax rise.
And then on top there will be Labour's own tax rises. Reeves reported to be looking at 12 additional rises.
That's why the £2,000 Labour tax-rise resonates - we all know it's going to be true.
The only inaccuracy is that it's an underestimate.
I find this election more dishonest than usual. the parties are chucking out gimmicks to fill air time and not actually addressing the major issues we face. The economy, housing, health care.
It may change when manifestos are released, but I doubt it.
Yes - and when is this? Still cannot find a date from the major parties other than ‘before the election’ (duh really?).
Labour’s in particular we need to see.
According to the news, Labour's is finalised, and will be officially launched early next week.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Always surprises me that the people didn't clap the most important people in society like the bankers, politicians, private health profiteers and equity fund managers.
Interesting article in the Times about "olfactory heritage".
Anyone who has grown up near a steelworks, a brewery or the sea understands the time-travelling power of smell. The power of a sudden and unexpected whiff of the past to recreate instantly a scene from childhood: football on a rutted field in the shadow of some belching factory, or for seaside dwellers the sulphurous odour of decomposing seaweed during a shoreline amble for flotsam. Brains are repositories for smells long banished from daily life by progress: the leather interior of a Morris Minor, the chemical intensity of a typewriter ribbon or the golden fullness of pies made freshly on the premises.
For me the two places where I think of smell more than anything else is Bridgwater and the old cellophane factory and Warrington and the smell of soap from Lever Brothers. Does anyone else have any now lost evocative smells?
HP sauce near to Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham. It was neither pleasant nor unpleasant but very pervasive. I believe the factory is closed now.
A smell that used to be everywhere but has almost disappeared is coal smoke.
York used to have two distinctive smells. Chocolate from Terry’s and Beet from the Sugar Beet Factory. Both long gone.
Certain areas of Nottingham had pork pie smells - from Pork Farms. Now owned by private equity.
A place where Ed Davey worked at one time in his youth as a Saturday or student job.
It had an interesting boss at one time called Wally Huckle, who became an Industrial Chaplain in iirc his 50s and created a ministry as "Commercial Chaplain" based at St Peter's in the City Centre.
Quite entrepreneurial. The terms were "the Diocese will fund 1/3, the Parish will fund 1/3, and you will find 1/3 from business". The interesting things always happen on the margins and at the edges, but require significant skills to do successfully.
That would be from starting sometime in the early 1990s I think.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Always surprises me that the people didn't clap the most important people in society like the bankers, politicians, private health profiteers and equity fund managers.
Strange that
Can console themselves their man who will represent the important peoples interests is about to win.
It was a relief to see that Reform managed to put up a candidate at the last minute in my constituency of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. It should help the LD to win and bring in my bet at 7/1 [currently 9/2 and still value].
One has the impression he scribbled his statement hurriedly before the deadline. I think he's about 15.
Here it is:
'We, unfortunately, lost our seat in Barnwood and only lost by 3 votes In podsmead, it was a great campaign and it just proves us residents wont be taken for granted we won't take anymore!
Next year in 2021 the conservatives will come back harder and we will win! I understand how the election was so close between us and the liberals possibily over brexit! I am a Brexiteer and we must respect democracy deliver Brexit and the conservatives will be on the up!
I would like to say thank you to the 200 people that voted for me it was an honour at such a young age to receive so much support I will continue to help podsmead residents and never let them down I am passionate hardworking reliable and won't let residents down.
2021 here the conservatives come!
Podsmead will soon understand how much it means to have a councillor who lives in the area.
Once again thank you.
Byron'
Here in Stratford upon Avon we have the prospect of a split LD vote. The former mayor of Stratford (LD) is standing as an independent.
Very interesting, Alan. It looks an open contest.
At a glance, I'd suggest a Con hold would be the value at 4/5.
It looks like the Tories are going to put the abolition of NI in their manifesto as an ambition when the country can afford it .
The problem here is how on earth the country could ever afford to lose that much revenue . And it’s risky because of the shadow of Truss . Given NI does go towards pensions if pensioners think it could effect that then it’s a problem for the Tories .
Abolition of NI is a stupid idea, it should be ringfenced to provide funds to support state pensions, contributions based unemployment benefits and healthcare as it was created for.
While a cut to stamp duty for first time buyers might be welcome, Reform's promise to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million is a policy I very much am attracted by
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Always surprises me that the people didn't clap the most important people in society like the bankers, politicians, private health profiteers and equity fund managers.
Strange that
They had financial reward enough.
Cheaper to applaud Doctors and Nurses with pots and pans on a Thursday evening than increase their pay by 30%.
Why not a 70% pay hike? Or 150%? Don't you love the NHS enough?! Did you applaud for a full minute or stop after 40 seconds like someone who doesn't truly adore the pinnacle of human civilisation?
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
56% of the population of England and Wales are still Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Jewish on the last census
I thought Penny’s apology seemed very genuine. If you’re a Tory MP trying to save your seat it must be so frustrating and Sunak has effectively trashed the campaign . Sunaks approval is likely to hit rock bottom and will be a further drag on the party .
I think sometimes we forget that MPs are real people and losing their seat is crushing for many . What we mustn’t do in the UK is follow the USA lead .
We can all still be friends even if we disagree on our politics .
The polarization in the USA is horrific. I never want to see that in the UK .
It was a relief to see that Reform managed to put up a candidate at the last minute in my constituency of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. It should help the LD to win and bring in my bet at 7/1 [currently 9/2 and still value].
One has the impression he scribbled his statement hurriedly before the deadline. I think he's about 15.
Here it is:
'We, unfortunately, lost our seat in Barnwood and only lost by 3 votes In podsmead, it was a great campaign and it just proves us residents wont be taken for granted we won't take anymore!
Next year in 2021 the conservatives will come back harder and we will win! I understand how the election was so close between us and the liberals possibily over brexit! I am a Brexiteer and we must respect democracy deliver Brexit and the conservatives will be on the up!
I would like to say thank you to the 200 people that voted for me it was an honour at such a young age to receive so much support I will continue to help podsmead residents and never let them down I am passionate hardworking reliable and won't let residents down.
2021 here the conservatives come!
Podsmead will soon understand how much it means to have a councillor who lives in the area.
Once again thank you.
Byron'
Here in Stratford upon Avon we have the prospect of a split LD vote. The former mayor of Stratford (LD) is standing as an independent.
Very interesting, Alan. It looks an open contest.
At a glance, I'd suggest a Con hold would be the value at 4/5.
Thoughts?
I'd expect a con hold. If they don't there wont be much of a conservative party left nationally. I'd expect the LD splitter only to pick up a few hundred votes as if you want the Cons out the LDs are the ones to go for. They might have an outside chance as they hammered the blues at the council elections. We also have a local party Ive never come across
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
We have the NHS, founded by the apostle Clement Attlee.
At least we no longer have the evening act of worship from the Covid era.
Always surprises me that the people didn't clap the most important people in society like the bankers, politicians, private health profiteers and equity fund managers.
Strange that
Can console themselves their man who will represent the important peoples interests is about to win.
Morning all. The LOL result of course is Tories hold the Blue Wall, Farage storms the Red, Labour end up short by a few. Looking at Norwich South, Glorious George and the SDP have abandoned me, ive ruled out the English four leaving me The Party of Women or Reform. I dont see myself as a modern day Suffragette so, reluctantly, chalk up one for big stupid Nigel here.
I don't think redwaller, older CDE voters will like Farage planning the end of the NHS. I suspect Labour's ad will play strongly there.
Great piece Robert. What’s your thoughts on this though - as a LD and obvious supporter of PR - I would find it hilariously funny if…
The vote share order goes: 1. Lab 2. Con 3. Reform 4. LD
But the seats are Labour - mid to high 400s Lib Dem’s - 70-80 Cons - 60 odd SNP - 30 odd Greens 2 Reform - 1
It would be really funny to see the Tories who have gerrymandered the boundaries (or so they thought), enforce voter ID, scrap SV for mayoral elections, reduce the independence of the electoral commission BUT the one thing they should have probably done was switch to some form of PR for Westminster elections!
Yes, funny, but perfectly possible.
This Site has an extraordinarily wide range of contributors, geographically as well as politically, but you may well be our first Malaysian expat.
Welcome.
Thanks - I’ve actually been back in the UK 6 years but set up my account when I was an expat in Malaysia! I’m working on the LD campaign in Maidenhead… even without a Reform candidate - the canvass numbers look really close… between us and the parachuted in Tory - tactical squeeze of Labour needed.
Thanks EM. That looks a decent chance for you guys. I've had a fiver at 5/2.
Never been to Malaysia,although my old firm, CDC Group plc, had substantial investments there. I used to spend quite a bit of time working with our staff out there, but never got to meet any of them.
You don't know the company, do you? It's been there since 1948.
It was interesting to catch a glimpse of Rayner and Mordaunt having a friendly word afterwards. I know they are both there to do a job, but why the performative anger when they are in reality more friendly towards each other.
One, because a debate is in part a performance, and two, maybe they did get genuinely angry during a heated moment but are capable of letting go of it once the moment passes.
Politicians are people, not automatons, they may train themselves and have strategies to employ but they won't be able to control themselves 100%. Has anyone here never gotten mad at a friend or loved one and quickly dialed it back once it was released?
And as i asked Sandpit, if it's thought they were basically acting, why assume the angry part was false rather than the friendly bit being false? The debate was over but a fake smile and friendliness is impossible?
Simplest explanation? They don't agree on many things but are not weirdos.
I have passionate arguments with friends - including about politics - which can get quite heated. We are still good friends. Its a sign of maturity, not hypocrisy. Friends are incredibly valuable and the best kind last for life; politics comes and goes
The fact Millennials refuse to be friends with anyone they disagree with is a bleak signal of their stupidity, not their noble purity
Wise words
I am just wondering if this is actually a generational thing, or is it more something to do with polarisation caused by internet use? I would also comment that most people I know in the real world don't really have fixed left or right political views. It is only a small (and declining) number who participate in the 'performance of reaction' which I think people are getting increasingly wise to.
I work in a mixed multicultural workplace with staff from age 18 to 75, probably 75% female. I don't know anything about the political views of the vast majority of them, and I don't think there is any real difference between the ages in terms of work ethic, or inclination to take offence.
I work in a very similar environment. I think there are very obvious generational differences but they are complex so generalising is difficult. One thing is one team have people in their 50's running a 'command and control' management system and people in their 20's doing the work seem to be fine with it.
One thing I would observe is that the attempts to roll out 'diversity equity and inclusion' initiatives by the (largely white, male) senior management are completely ignored by the mass of workers.
DEI is purely performative and doesn't really mean anything.
I read a management book which noted such things have been around for decades in one form or another yet things often seem unchanged or worse.
Their suggestion, and in fairness I don't know if it was backed up with evidence, was it works much better when genuinely voluntary, as people are usually happy to engage then, but make it mandatory and they switch off as it's a box tick or a lecture. And that can be counterproductive and cause resentment.
I did a session recently which was quite good as things go, felt like a genuine conversation and didnt do a common thing of dismissing any concerns, but they messed up by including an external video which was literally an anti-capitalist screen which barely even related to DEI.
Just so: there's definitely something in listening to other people with different experiences.
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
Since England has lost religion we no longer get God botherers just plain botherers.
56% of the population of England and Wales are still Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Jewish on the last census
Comments
And then on top there will be Labour's own tax rises. Reeves reported to be looking at 12 additional rises.
Are they concerned about leaking voters to Reform ?
https://x.com/uklabour/status/1799161866624643418?s=61
Why does it need to be ruined by a lecturing that you should feel a sense of shame for who you are too?
I'm increasingly sad that some of the most dangerous policies also happen to be the best ones, if implemented correctly. NICs replacement, social care reform, large infrastructure projects, even National Service.
But trainers are less bored by it as it’s a job they’ve chosen.
Thats a point which probably is worth addressing.
Farage went almost exclusively after Mordaunt, butted into every exchange, said exactly what you expect him to say, he got applause for his affirmation of stop and search. If you're in the market for what he's selling then he delivered so not surprised that he won the debate in the eyes of 25% of the public.
Rayner didn't really shine in my view but she only took one bad hit from Flynn. She combatted Mordaunt's attacks very well. Surprised she was the 2nd favourite by the More in Common poll but Labour will be happy with her performance.
Mordaunt pretty much ignored Farage and just went after Rayner. She made sure to mention that she came from Portsmouth, threw Sunak a little bit towards the bus on D-Day, held the line on the Labour £2,000 well despite audience skepticism. I think she did okay given the record she had to defend but can see how helpful Tories might have been disappointed.
Flynn went only against Rayner and skewered her with the "Where's the money going to come from?" question which Rayner (and Labour) doesn't have a good answer for. There was another bout over GB Energy which Flynn portrayed as taking Scottish jobs but that was messy and I don't think there was a clear winner out of that.
Denyer was okay, said all the things you expect a Green to say, remembered to name check Bristol a couple of times, had maybe the best one liner when she said "That was very dignified" after a very heated Rayner v Mordaunt argument.
Cooper I felt did better than the MiC poll suggested, she set out the Lib Dem platform pretty good and when there was a question on broken promises and the tuition fees promise came up she accepted it was a bad thing that the Lib Dems had done.
ap Iowerth didn't really do much, I can only remember him joining in with Mordaunt's attack on Welsh Labour's management of the NHS. Seemed statesmanlike enough which is probably all he needed to be, think that next Senedd elections he would make mincemeat out of Gething if Gething gets that far.
That's why I don't respect you. You think only you should be allowed to do it, and it's entirely justified because you think your politics are pure and right.
However, you are also highly insecure and desperate for attention, so for that you have my sympathy.
The problem with this campaign is that the scatter gun policy approach is not doing anything at the margins and the D-Day screwup has meant even core Tories are disinclined to get out and vote. This is a disaster bordering on a catastrophe.
But, DEI is entirely the wrong way to do it. It's about corporate and individual narcissism, not about you.
This Site has an extraordinarily wide range of contributors, geographically as well as politically, but you may well be our first Malaysian expat.
Welcome.
Immigration is a massive issue amongst European youth, and I can't believe they're fundamentally different.
When are the next polls due out ?
We're at the fight you stage. They wouldn't be bothering unless they had concerning polling.
The only inaccuracy is that it's an underestimate.
Thanks - I’ve actually been back in the UK 6 years but set up my account when I was an expat in Malaysia! I’m working on the LD campaign in Maidenhead… even without a Reform candidate - the canvass numbers look really close… between us and the parachuted in Tory - tactical squeeze of Labour needed.
HR work for the company and its interests, not yours.
Look at his constant bullying of me, including his regular ‘EVERYONE hates you’.
No wonder he doesn’t like DEI.
He says I’m 'full of shit' but I’ve never encountered a more unpleasant individual online, as others have also experienced on here.
If I were a pb tory I’d be msging him to dial it down. He’s confirming what a lot of us know, that The Nasty Party are in full control of the Conservatives. Pity them because they won’t ever win power in this country with his like.
If Reform do too well the spotlight will shine on this, and based upon what happened to Pauline Hanson in Australia back in her first iteration, you don't want that to happen.
Far better that Reform don't win more than a few seats, the Tories get mostly wiped out and Farage can do his reverse takeover without people pointing out the calibre of who are doing the takeover.
You need a better response that just throwing around "nasty" and "unpleasant", I'm afraid.
Like changing your posting style.
Everyone I employ should be working for the company and its interests.
There's something about the class, confidence and brand of the Conservatives that makes them doubt their own convictions and not deliver on them.
This isn't the case in other anglophone equivalents.
One has the impression he scribbled his statement hurriedly before the deadline. I think he's about 15.
Here it is:
'We, unfortunately, lost our seat in Barnwood and only lost by 3 votes In podsmead, it was a great campaign and it just proves us residents wont be taken for granted we won't take anymore!
Next year in 2021 the conservatives will come back harder and we will win! I understand how the election was so close between us and the liberals possibily over brexit! I am a Brexiteer and we must respect democracy deliver Brexit and the conservatives will be on the up!
I would like to say thank you to the 200 people that voted for me it was an honour at such a young age to receive so much support I will continue to help podsmead residents and never let them down I am passionate hardworking reliable and won't let residents down.
2021 here the conservatives come!
Podsmead will soon understand how much it means to have a councillor who lives in the area.
Once again thank you.
Byron'
F1: wet in Canada, may well be the same for qualifying and the race. Hopefully that makes it dramatic and exciting rather than just getting rained off.
Still, as (Roger Moore) James Bond accurately opined
"We all get our jollies one way or another."
The media were blowing smoke up Rishi's nether regions to big up the story of the election being close until last week. Since Farage re-entered the fray the Right-wing media seem to believe the bigger story is the latest Farage vehicle usurping the Tories. This is very worrying.
It may change when manifestos are released, but I doubt it.
Those policies did resonate much better in the polling that virtually everyone on her argued, and I was right about that, but what i got wrong was just how crippling the dead hand of Rishi and the toxic brand he carries would be.
SKS absolutely doesn't want that.
Sorry.
Instead it forms part of the Conservative Party of Canada which was created by the merger of the Canadian Tories and the successor to the Canadian Reform party in 2003.
The Conservative Party of Canada now leads Trudeau's governing Reform Party in current Canadian polls
Reading the plot set up, it's quite beautifully designed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Manor_Born
I probably need to go for conversion therapy or something.
Can you leave your personal vendetta against her for some other forum please? You are totally spoiling this place for me and I suspect others.
Thanks in advance.
The LOL result of course is Tories hold the Blue Wall, Farage storms the Red, Labour end up short by a few.
Looking at Norwich South, Glorious George and the SDP have abandoned me, ive ruled out the English four leaving me The Party of Women or Reform. I dont see myself as a modern day Suffragette so, reluctantly, chalk up one for big stupid Nigel here.
Your problem is not your colourful backstory but the colour of your rosette. You are also quite hubristic which makes them angry. Only they are allowed to say "suck it up Remainer losers", "Captain Hindsight can never win an election" and "Boris will be a four term Churchillian PM, he got all the big calls right".
It just feels weird that a party that has existed and dominated for, what, 190 years? could fall so easily.
Labour’s in particular we need to see.
Normally I am happy just to point out value, but in this case I am actually going to be very disappointed if it doesn't come in. As Eek pointed out yesterday, the Labour candidate is little more than token. She definitely shouldn't be second in the betting. I'm expecting her to come a distant third. [She could even finish fourth behind RefUk.]
Nobody can guarantee a winner, but I do promise you those odds are wrong. If you got 9/2 or better, you've done ok.
I thought the most significant part was Penny’s apology for the D-day issue, which didn’t reflect well on the PM.
There a handful of Left-wing posters I do, but not the sensible ones.
Strange that
A place where Ed Davey worked at one time in his youth as a Saturday or student job.
It had an interesting boss at one time called Wally Huckle, who became an Industrial Chaplain in iirc his 50s and created a ministry as "Commercial Chaplain" based at St Peter's in the City Centre.
Quite entrepreneurial. The terms were "the Diocese will fund 1/3, the Parish will fund 1/3, and you will find 1/3 from business". The interesting things always happen on the margins and at the edges, but require significant skills to do successfully.
That would be from starting sometime in the early 1990s I think.
There's an appreciation here:
https://claves.nottinghamchurches.org/chaplaincy/wally.html
I note that Johnson and Sunak did participate.
Either brand of Tory on offer
At a glance, I'd suggest a Con hold would be the value at 4/5.
Thoughts?
While a cut to stamp duty for first time buyers might be welcome, Reform's promise to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million is a policy I very much am attracted by
Cheaper to applaud Doctors and Nurses with pots and pans on a Thursday evening than increase their pay by 30%.
Why not a 70% pay hike? Or 150%? Don't you love the NHS enough?! Did you applaud for a full minute or stop after 40 seconds like someone who doesn't truly adore the pinnacle of human civilisation?
Are you really a Tory as per your name?
I think sometimes we forget that MPs are real people and losing their seat is crushing for many . What we mustn’t do in the UK is follow the USA lead .
We can all still be friends even if we disagree on our politics .
The polarization in the USA is horrific. I never want to see that in the UK .
Appreciate it might work for others but I've never made money from them, and I now steer clear.
https://nonpol.com/
are they standing anywhere else ?
All academic as far as I'm concerned as I'll be in France for my son's wedding on polling day.
To still have the health and means age 90 to do what you love is inspirational.
Never been to Malaysia,although my old firm, CDC Group plc, had substantial investments there. I used to spend quite a bit of time working with our staff out there, but never got to meet any of them.
You don't know the company, do you? It's been there since 1948.