This should cause Jenrick problems but will it? – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Still two more matches afterwards, so not a dead rubber, but a must win gameDavidL said:
Being foolhardy as well as a natural optimist I will be there with 5 of my mates. Looks like it will be a dead rubber though.Stuartinromford said:
There had better be lots of good reasons for this.Taz said:
They’re playing on Tuesday in Durham.ydoethur said:Match over.
England's batting has been pathetic.
Edit - perhaps I'm unfair to pathetic people there.
This is worse than pathetic!
Last week in September for an ODI up here.
Seems a bizarre decision.
A Hundred of them, at least.1 -
Please do NOT feed the Putin-Bots!
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.0 -
Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.0 -
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.2 -
@kaitlancollins
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.3 -
Trumps solution when he takes office will be to ban women from voting.DavidL said:
Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.Nigelb said:Quite the post from Trump.
Wonder what wound him up ?
https://x.com/joncoopertweets/status/18374763821226234770 -
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.1 -
That's likely to affect older and married women, who I suspect will be more pro GOP than average.Nigelb said:.
On that note, this is the piece of legislation the Republicans were trying to pass, tied to the funding bill - which is why the US is again on the brink of a government shutdown.rottenborough said:
Not sure how far he is going to get with women by reminding them again that he took away their federal abortion protections and handed it back to states who are often banning it altogether.DavidL said:
Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.Nigelb said:Quite the post from Trump.
Wonder what wound him up ?
https://x.com/joncoopertweets/status/1837476382122623477
It’s a remarkable piece of blatant, and not quite so blatant ratfuckery.
https://newrepublic.com/article/186160/republican-war-women-extends-voting-rights
… The SAVE Act is a proposed federal law, so, first off, it would put a future president (say, Trump) in charge of enforcing it, taking that power away from the states. Millions of voter registrations in any states the president decides are problematic could be removed until those voters “cure” their registrations, and state authorities would have no say in it.
And what will the law require citizens who want to vote do? Lacking a passport or other proof of citizenship with their married names, they must produce both a birth certificate (with the seal of the state where it was issued; no copies allowed) and a current form of identification—both with the exact same name on them. That could instantly disqualify about 90 percent of all married women without passports or other proof that matches their birth certificates or proof of a legal name change.
For women in that situation, they can still register to vote if they can prove that they went to court to change their name when they got married, but most women just start using their new married name without ever going through all those formalities (although a few states recognize marriage as a legal name change).
As a result, as the National Organization for Women details in a report on how Republican voter suppression efforts harm women:
Voter ID laws have a disproportionately negative effect on women. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, one third of all women have citizenship documents that do not identically match their current names primarily because of name changes at marriage. Roughly 90 percent of women who marry adopt their husband’s last name.
That means that roughly 90 percent of married female voters have a different name on their ID than the one on their birth certificate. An estimated 34 percent of women could be turned away from the polls unless they have precisely the right documents.
Just by coincidence, Republicans will suggest, at this moment in history millions of American women are seriously pissed off at the GOP...
The not quite so obvious bit is that it awards the President power over the running of elections - at a time when the Supreme Court has ruled the President has no liability for crimes committed in the course of official acts.
Incidentally all those who want more Presidential legal liability perhaps should have been demanding Sleepy Joe be put on trial for this:
The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58604655
No shortage of 'collateral damage' by drone under St Barack of Obama either.1 -
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.0 -
So Nigel Farage has similar views on "leadership" as do Vladimir Putin AND Donald Trump?rottenborough said:
sundersays.bsky.social @sundersays.bsky.social
·
31m
The Reform Constitution rules for removing a leader are absurdly restrictive
50% of the entire membership have to write to the party chairman to trigger the vote of no confidence!
50% of MPs could trigger a no confidence vote - but this does not apply until 100 MPs!
Surprise, surprise!0 -
My random diversion for the day, and my photo quota.
The first submarine for the French Navy, from 1863. The MN Plongeur, driven by compressed air.
5 minute video, from Drachinifel. It looks like the island planned for their new aircraft carrier due in about 2048, on its side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YQ3Mkay9sU1 -
For my photo of the day: a rare Lego model.
To commemorate the tenth anniversary of Staythorpe Power Station, in 2020.4 -
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.0 -
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
1 -
For the small minority of PBers with an active interest in elections for their own sake . . .
Sample ballot for upcoming Ranked Choice Voting general election for Portland, Oregon city council (specifically for Multnoma County voting precinct 2805):
https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/5-1-2805-1-RCV-NON-EN.pdf
AND here is the ballot (same precinct) for the rest of the election, for federal, state and other local offices:
https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/80-1-2805-1-S-NON-EN.pdf
Re: the PDX RCV election, this is first for the new City Council, which replaces the former City Commission which was elected citywide. Thus a Brave New World for voters AND candidates in the CIty of Roses.0 -
If you are going to 'call out' propoganda on the right, and want to be consistent, then you should also identify propoganda on the left. A lot of posts on this website fall in this category.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Please do NOT feed the Putin-Bots!
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.0 -
What about a Black Russian?TomW said:
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.0 -
Can some English people have other identities as well ? For example, Indian or Nigerian or Irish ?MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Because if the English part of their identity is 'nebulous' while the other aspects of the identity are more 'concrete' isn't it a possibility that the other parts of their identity become dominant ?
Something which might not be conducive to a harmonious society.0 -
You’re right although the chances of 3 results in 3 ODIs at this time of year are slim to nil.CatMan said:
Still two more matches afterwards, so not a dead rubber, but a must win gameDavidL said:
Being foolhardy as well as a natural optimist I will be there with 5 of my mates. Looks like it will be a dead rubber though.Stuartinromford said:
There had better be lots of good reasons for this.Taz said:
They’re playing on Tuesday in Durham.ydoethur said:Match over.
England's batting has been pathetic.
Edit - perhaps I'm unfair to pathetic people there.
This is worse than pathetic!
Last week in September for an ODI up here.
Seems a bizarre decision.
A Hundred of them, at least.
The problem is that Australia bat better, bowl better and field better. Other than that it’s highly competitive.2 -
Well Australia are better at slogathons.DavidL said:
You’re right although the chances of 3 results in 3 ODIs at this time of year are slim to nil.CatMan said:
Still two more matches afterwards, so not a dead rubber, but a must win gameDavidL said:
Being foolhardy as well as a natural optimist I will be there with 5 of my mates. Looks like it will be a dead rubber though.Stuartinromford said:
There had better be lots of good reasons for this.Taz said:
They’re playing on Tuesday in Durham.ydoethur said:Match over.
England's batting has been pathetic.
Edit - perhaps I'm unfair to pathetic people there.
This is worse than pathetic!
Last week in September for an ODI up here.
Seems a bizarre decision.
A Hundred of them, at least.
The problem is that Australia bat better, bowl better and field better. Other than that it’s highly competitive.
Perhaps England should prepare pitches where one day cricket matches can be played.0 -
Course she has. CNN will be friendly full tosses rather than anything probing.Scott_xP said:@kaitlancollins
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.0 -
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.CatMan said:
What about a Black Russian?TomW said:
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC0 -
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.Gardenwalker said:
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.0 -
0
-
Highly unlikely, the right of the party does not have enough MPs to get to the last 2.numbertwelve said:
I agree. It’s entirely possible the conference will change things quite significantly.Cookie said:On thread - Jenrick's reached 63% now? I think he's reasonably the favourite under current circumstances but 63% seems too high to me. A lot still to happen between now and then.
I suspect Jenrick makes the last two, but who joins him and how much of chance they have against him will likely be dictated by how the candidates do at conference.
I still don’t think it’s inconceivable we get Jenrick v Badenoch.
Jenrick and Tugendhat are also the best speakers of the final 4 so I expect both to get a boost after their conference speeches0 -
What is your basis for this opinion? Extended analysis of previous debates, for example?Taz said:
Course she has. CNN will be friendly full tosses rather than anything probing.Scott_xP said:@kaitlancollins
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.
My belief, is that what you are saying, is what Trump & his fluffers (NOT saying you're one of 'em!) will be claiming, as his "reason" for chickening out.
BUT we shall see . . .0 -
Indeed, if you are clever and want to make money go into banking or corporate and commercial law or become a surgeon or senior executive of a major company. Maybe afterwards if you want to do public service go into politics but don't expect it to make you super rich, it is an above average paid profession but not the route to richesRichard_Tyndall said:
But they are not underpaid copmpared to the majority of the UK population - and they are supposd to be wanting the job out of a sense of public duty and service not to line their own pockets.Tres said:
THh thing is, MPs and cabinet ministers are wildy underpaid compared to their peers in any other walk of life. All this caterwauling is just going to make it an even more unattractive profession for talented people to consider.twistedfirestopper3 said:Just like expenses, it appears that once you become an MP, your moral compass gets switched off, and the pursuit of money over and above your earned wage becomes paramount.
Political donations are perfectly legitimate as long as they are declared, above board and used for campaigning/running the office and suchlike.
Where it starts to stink is the sheer amount of freebies MPs seem to attract, no matter what party they represent.
If the PM needs a clothing allowance for them and a partner, then fair enough, make it part of the package and showcase the best of British, but can a cabinet minister really not afford to buy their own clothes?
Now the other freebies are bit more stinky and complicated.
No such thing as a free lunch and all that.
Footie tickets and Swifty tickets? Get to fuck, they should be buying their own.
Things like Charity Ball tickets are maybe more acceptable, but it's complicated.
Ed Davey taking cash to care for his kid? A tough one, but on balance, I don't like it.
Farage off to the States to support an injured mate? Unacceptable.
It's gone on for years, but it needs to be stricter and all the freebies stopped.
Free Gear Keir and Vicky Sponge have done us all a favour by really highlighting it.
Now that is a poor argument when talking about nurses and teachers who are on fuck all but not when you are talking about the Prime Minister who is already on a few quid short of £167,000 a year.
This is another failing of our adoption of this idea of professional politicians - politics as a career rather than as service.
1 -
There's a WORLD of difference, between being opinionated and (perhaps) seriously wrong-headed, and being a shill, either paid OR volunteer.darkage said:
If you are going to 'call out' propoganda on the right, and want to be consistent, then you should also identify propoganda on the left. A lot of posts on this website fall in this category.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Please do NOT feed the Putin-Bots!
Either part-timers OR the full-timers (such as wg) who infest PB.
Or is their zero difference, in your view of what's "consistent"?0 -
IDS never lost a general election to be fair to himDavidL said:
And Iain Duncan Smith. Let's face it, the membership of the Conservative and Unionist party is simply not fit for purpose.SandraMc said:Dodgy Bobby. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The Conservatives would be mad to select him - but then they selected Liz Truss.
0 -
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?Taz said:
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.CatMan said:
What about a Black Russian?TomW said:
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?0 -
Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?0 -
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.MJW said:
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.Gardenwalker said:
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.0 -
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.3 -
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.1 -
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.1 -
To value four nights in an upscale two-bedroom midtown apartment over NYE at £1250 is absolutely indefensible.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?0 -
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.0 -
All identities are nebulous. In your example though, those who have, or have parents who came from another country that they identify as that becomes more of a significant marker than the overall one, as that is so common as to be the default.another_richard said:
Can some English people have other identities as well ? For example, Indian or Nigerian or Irish ?MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Because if the English part of their identity is 'nebulous' while the other aspects of the identity are more 'concrete' isn't it a possibility that the other parts of their identity become dominant ?
Something which might not be conducive to a harmonious society.
To take the examples of an Indian and Nigerian, both those countries have varied cultures and attitudes to their history and politics, in a way that's probably even wider apart than the UK or England. If someone was living there then the fact were 'Indian' or 'Nigerian' wouldn't be worth commenting on - intra-country differences would. Yet it clearly is an important part of your background if you come to another country.0 -
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.0 -
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial0 -
It’s bizarre, if you criticise Harris in any way you need to qualify it by criticising trump.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
What is your basis for this opinion? Extended analysis of previous debates, for example?Taz said:
Course she has. CNN will be friendly full tosses rather than anything probing.Scott_xP said:@kaitlancollins
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Trump on October 23.
My belief, is that what you are saying, is what Trump & his fluffers (NOT saying you're one of 'em!) will be claiming, as his "reason" for chickening out.
BUT we shall see . . .
I’ve said more than once I want her to win. Due to Trumps economic policies.
CNN have been somewhat friendly towards Harris. Both candidates prefer the media organs that are friendly to them.0 -
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
1 -
This is where commas are important:SeaShantyIrish2 said:
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?Taz said:
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.CatMan said:
What about a Black Russian?TomW said:
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
Would you like rimming sugar?
Would you like rimming, sugar?
Two very different sentences.4 -
The interesting thing Trump says is this bit: ...with powerful exceptions, like those that Ronald Reagan insisted on, for rape, incest and the life of the motherDavidL said:
Possibly an even larger differential between the sexes than we have seen already? Trump must know that right now women (and those liars he appointed to the SC) are going to cost him the election.Nigelb said:Quite the post from Trump.
Wonder what wound him up ?
https://x.com/joncoopertweets/status/1837476382122623477
In trying to carve out those exceptions, Trump is standing against the ultras on his own side (hence the appeal to Reagan).0 -
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial0 -
They were innocent times. I’m sure it was Coca-Cola.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
By "coke" presume you mean "Coca-cola"?Taz said:
Had a few of these in the nightclubs of Stafford in the late eighties when I was ineptly trying to chat the ladies up.. With the wonderfully named ‘rimming sugar’ around the rim of the glass.CatMan said:
What about a Black Russian?TomW said:
Is a black african from nigeria as english as a white person with ancestors here from 1000 years ago.MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Vodka, Tia Maria and coke IIRC
IF so, are you sure that "rimming sugar" was really (mostly) sugar?
TBH by the time we started on the Black Russians we were somewhat tipsy so we could only hope it was sugar.
A few years earlier it was Pernod and Black or Jellybeans.1 -
Churchill backed Edward VIII in the abdication crisis, largely I suspect to annoy Baldwin whom he had come to dislike.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
So any Shinner tendencies would have been feigned.0 -
Interestingly Labour has never had a leader educated at Cambridge, the LDs have, Maclennan, Clegg and Cable and David Owen went to Cambridge and led the SDP but never Labour. The closest they got was Fitzwilliam College Cambridge educated Burnham who was runner up to Corbyn in 2015HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.0 -
'New commenter'Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
Rather made me think of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w23oPQdnNH8&ab_channel=speedy68380 -
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”0 -
The other tell for the rest of us is that when faced with quips about being a Russian bot they never engage. Never. That’s clearly part of the instruction pamphlet. No attempt to demonstrate Britishness. No personal details either - no back story. In fact TomW strayed somewhat in even suggesting he was going to the gym.TheScreamingEagles said:
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.
Kind of ironic he’s the one asking us about what constitutes British identity.0 -
Those bloody Oxbridge rejects are certainly dragging the city down.Taz said:Good news for Durham City.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce81e3y92zyo3 -
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.0 -
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.0 -
Watching A Very Royal Scandal, talking of NYC freebiesLeon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
They should have paid Andrew to play himself this guy is not remotely odious enough.0 -
I find it hard to believe she flew Economy, as well. Her and her “friend” Sam Tarry. Which potentially puts the holiday in the £10k bracketTheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
The Tories did far worse. But the Tories didn’t stand at conference lecterns raging about corrupt politicians and shouting “there’s one rule for them, one rule for the rest of us!!”
Also, who is leaking all this the day before the Labour Conference?
Someone - or some people - are trying to destroy Starmer’s govt from the inside0 -
God's a microwave for people who make poor potato choices? I'm not sure this cult of yours will progress.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.0 -
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.TheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.0 -
Cambridge isn't posh enough for Labour.HYUFD said:
Interestingly Labour has never had a leader educated at Cambridge, the LDs have, Maclennan, Clegg and Cable and David Owen went to Cambridge and led the SDP but never Labour. The closest they got was Fitzwilliam College Cambridge educated Burnham who was runner up to Corbyn in 2015HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.1 -
He's her ex.Leon said:
I find it hard to believe she flew Economy, as well. Her and her “friend” Sam Tarry. Which potentially puts the holiday in the £10k bracketTheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
The Tories did far worse. But the Tories didn’t stand at conference lecterns raging about corrupt politicians and shouting “there’s one rule for them, one rule for the rest of
Broke up in I think 2023.0 -
I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.0
-
His tour of the UK this year - wonder if it took in Salisbury?TheScreamingEagles said:
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.0 -
Indeed. England can boast Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Richard III and James II.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
Scotland can mention John, Mary, James I and James VII.
And both can boast of Edward VIII.0 -
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.TheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.0 -
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.1 -
I am somebody who publicly stated on here that the Angela Rayner housing arrangements were a non story/thin gruel, I do conclude her visit to the Big Apple is a proper story.1
-
An in spired suggestion.MarqueeMark said:
His tour of the UK this year - wonder if it took in Salisbury?TheScreamingEagles said:
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.0 -
I checked Airbnb for luxe two bed midtown Manhattan apartments with all these gewgaws, and views on the 50th floor. At NYE you’d be paying around £1000-1500 per NIGHTTheScreamingEagles said:
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.TheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.0 -
Teflon Ange, after she sailed through the two houses stuff.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Sam Tarry didn't declare it.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Or is it the other way round and that if there were two MPs sharing the holiday, they should declare half each? If it was £500 a night (say) then that is £250 for Rayner and £250 for Sam Tarry, MP (as was). If they both declare the full value it makes it look like Lord Alli has given twice as much as he did.TheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
It is understood Rayner arrived on her own before being joined by Tarry, with whom she spent New Year’s Eve. Although he served as MP for Ilford South at the time, he would only have had to disclose the accommodation on his own register of interests if he received it because of his political activities....
Rayner’s team claims that, although Tarry enjoyed the same underlying benefit, it did not need to be reported as Alli did not know that he had been there with her. The property Alli gave her boasts a three-storey gym with a Jacuzzi, concierge service and panoramic views of Manhattan.0 -
Is Starmer still taking advice from Blair/Mandelson or does he think he knows best?Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.0 -
It's their holier than thou attitude that always causes them problems.Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
I think they genuinely think 411 seats won was a sign of popularity.3 -
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.1 -
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.Gardenwalker said:
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.MJW said:
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.Gardenwalker said:
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.1 -
lolwilliamglenn said:I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”1 -
I didn't see his later posts. When he was banned what was the finial straw?ydoethur said:
An in spired suggestion.MarqueeMark said:
His tour of the UK this year - wonder if it took in Salisbury?TheScreamingEagles said:
Russian troll, I can see the IP address and email address used.Leon said:You’re all a bit mean to @TomW
He hasn’t actually said anything pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine - yet. What if he’s not a Russo-bot?
I accept it is likely he is but if he’s not you are meanly frightening away a new commenter
When they start banging on about the gays and I post that photo of Putin then they are a slam dunk bot.0 -
Too many people in this government are either utterly stupid or corrupt.
Or perhaps, both.1 -
The interviewer does not do that at all. People can go listen to the clip themselves. The interviewer gives Jenrick space to talk about identity.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.0 -
My only real comment is that the expenses story has had big cut through among the sort of people who turned Battersea blue then red. Boris came up and the general vibe was that his donations weren't nearly as bad because he was elected on a good times vibe rather than a cleaning up politics one.
Starmer is not managing the new govt bounce well at all. Smoking in pub gardens was a ridiculous own goal, as was choosing the triple lock over WFP.0 -
I'd happily ask Lord Alli if I could stay there for £250 a night.williamglenn said:I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
Suspect I'd be told to eff off until I stuck a nought on the end of it.0 -
Bloody funnySean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
And as I shall keep saying every day until 29 October there is nothing to do until 30 October except point and laugh and dig out sleaze stories. And if the budget is the best budget theoretically possible if JM Keynes were the chancellor, people will hate it. But in fact it will be a misconceived heap of shit.0 -
I have watched the clip linked to above again, carefully. The interviewer at no point says anything remotely like @Gardenwalker ’s claim. He does not say there is no such thing as English identity. He does not say the word “racist” or anything like it.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
Gardenwalker, could you explain yourself? Why are you making things up?0 -
Angela Rayner is the posh and middle class persons ideal view of the working class. They use her to burnish their pro worker credentials while reinforcing their worldview.. How can I be against the working class. I love Ange. She’s working class. She’s okay.Leon said:
lolwilliamglenn said:I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
Working class people who don’t confirm to their world view, like Lee Anderson however….
1 -
0
-
Until you've lived in Scotland, you have absolutely no idea what the state-sanctioned embrace of the national identity is. And this was true before the SNP took power. Scots are encouraged to embrace their national celebrations/festivals, language/dialect, and symbols/icons - a great deal of taxpayers' money is spent doing it. There's nothing equivalent for England. I suspect this is probably due to the long term plan to carve England up into regions rather than keep it as a single entity. Damaging social engineering by stupid, inadequate little people chasing their federalist dream.MJW said:
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.Gardenwalker said:
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.MJW said:
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.Gardenwalker said:
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.0 -
Shit, is that now? What a time to draw attention to one's CLOTHINGTaz said:Who gifted Free Gear Keir these ?
https://x.com/sketchaganda/status/1837436113754972562?s=61
Still watching royal scandal. 2TK is prince Andrew.
0 -
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.0 -
DecrepiterJohnL said:
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
What about the line about “rebellious Scots”?DecrepiterJohnL said:
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.0 -
I’ve just watched the Fayed documentary on iPlayer. Absolutely horrendous. Thank god we have #metoo and cancel culture today. If we’d had the same in the 1980s, many women would have been spared later rape, assault or harassment (and Princess Di would still be alive!).2
-
Tonight.TomW said:
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.3 -
At least the BBC isn't implicated in this one.bondegezou said:I’ve just watched the Fayed documentary on iPlayer. Absolutely horrendous. Thank god we have #metoo and cancel culture today. If we’d had the same in the 1980s, many women would have been spared later rape, assault or harassment (and Princess Di would still be alive!).
0 -
Seriously, is there a case for Sir Keir, Reeves and Rayner simply to resign? Drastic but it could be spun as the ultimate government relaunch and the Bidden-Harris handover cited as a legitimate 'game-changing' model. As things stand this clearly isn't working.0
-
It's more because it's seen as unnecessary I think - a reason both Scots and Welsh politicians, and the nationalists in particular, are so fiercely defensive on this stuff is a sign of weakness rather than strength. England is by far the largest member of the union and as such doesn't fear being subsumed into the wider whole.Luckyguy1983 said:
Until you've lived in Scotland, you have absolutely no idea what the state-sanctioned embrace of the national identity is. And this was true before the SNP took power. Scots are encouraged to embrace their national celebrations/festivals, language/dialect, and symbols/icons - a great deal of taxpayers' money is spent doing it. There's nothing equivalent for England. I suspect this is probably due to the long term plan to carve England up into regions rather than keep it as a single entity. Damaging social engineering by stupid, inadequate little people chasing their federalist dream.MJW said:
A percentage of the country thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. A percentage of people in this country believe the moon landings were faked.Gardenwalker said:
I saw the clip yesterday, and from memory he appeals to shared history, character and rituals.MJW said:
It's not undefinable, I didn't say that. Something can be nebulous and yet definable. No, rather the problem Jenrick has is that any definition that does work would expose that it isn't under threat and he's making nonsensical dog whistles.Gardenwalker said:
Your answer suggests that English identity is undefinable because it’s a “nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way.”MJW said:
No he asks him to define it - which is entirely fair. Jenrick screws up because any answer that's coherent, accurate and doesn't exclude lots of people who are very much English, would show that English identity isn't "under threat" in any way because it's a nebulous and evolving concept that people apply in their own way, and that in many senses it's more celebrated than ever - we've had West End plays about the England football team.Gardenwalker said:
Is that fair though?Scott_xP said:
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...bondegezou said:Jenrick being vague and defensive when asked to talk about English identity: https://news.sky.com/video/conservative-mp-tries-explain-what-english-identity-is-as-he-says-its-threatened-by-mass-migration-13218360
I think he'll need to do better.
The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
This is nonsense.
For example if we want to define in terms of shared culture and history, plus the symbols that go with that, then it's not being threatened and perhaps is now more embraced than ever before as increasingly people from different backgrounds have more of a stake in that shared culture and history.
So he waffles. Because he's only saying something this silly as a wink to the limited number of people who'll hear it as their own white version of identity, and when called on it, would be forced to state the subtext out loud and blowing up his campaign, or admit he's been talking out of his backside.
So yes, they are under being threatened - at least a decent percentage of the country would think so - by the kulturkampf over British (predominantly English) history, and rapid societal change, both of which appear to play off each other.
I think Jenrick appears to be corrupt, and certainly has a punchable face. His support for Trump is unfathomable. But he’s got a point here.
Obviously there are those who are radicals who don't like national identity and particular 'imperialist' Britain or England's. But firstly, twas ever thus, secondly they're not a threat because you can't enforce identity and its expressions are organic. In fact, their actions are liable to strengthen it. We live in a world where there's an entire industry that cashes in on twee expressions of 'Englishness' (or the Richard Curtisland version). Over the past 35 years the St George's Flag has become much more ubiquitous - football fans used to fly the Union Flag during tournamets but switched around Italia 90. One of the most popular podcasts in the country is two very English historians and often wryly ribbing the 'woke' version of it. We could go on.
It's also notable that in order to win the election Keir Starmer and Labour were absolutely determined to be seen as patriotic (for Britain in this case, but the point applies) because they knew how unpopular Corbyn's uncomfortableness with outward displays of affection for his country were. That's not an identity that's under threat in any meaningful sense.
You are always going to be able to find idiots who think scones are racist or who think Big Ben should be officially declared non-binary. You could find them 50 odd years ago on campuses, just as you can now, and Englishness has survived pretty well.
And regional identity is often more important to some people than their national identity. It's not 'social engineering' - it's down to our history, culture and the fact England's large enough to have more variation and defined regional identities.0 -
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,OldKingCole said:DecrepiterJohnL said:
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
What about the line about “rebellious Scots”?DecrepiterJohnL said:
That is why everyone should sing the national anthem each night, and not just the first verse. May he defend our laws, and ever give us cause... That's the important part, the British monarch defends our laws, not his laws, the King's laws or God's laws but our laws, made in Parliament by representatives of the people.Malmesbury said:
There is nothing so British as firing inconvenient Kings. Kings rule by divine right - if they fall off the throne, that’s God saying “You’re chips are done”.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Churchill the closet Shinner?HYUFD said:
To replace him with his brother as King who successfully with Churchill led us through WW2TheScreamingEagles said:
Baldwin was the best Tory ever.HYUFD said:
Jenrick (St John's, Cambridge) v Starmer (St Edmund Hall, Oxford by way of Leeds) would be the first Oxford v Cambridge general election Varsity Match since Howard v Blair in 2005. Oxford won that one, though Cambridge won the last one before that when Baldwin (Trinity, Cambridge) beat Attlee (University College, Oxford) in 1935algarkirk said:
He is Cambridge educated (John's, history) but not a Cambridge lawyer.TheScreamingEagles said:
His appeal is that he is a (Cambridge educated) lawyer.Sandpit said:On topic. Forgive me for not understanding the appeal of Robert Jenrick.
Lay the favourite?
The 2024 is the year of the lawyer.
Starmer, Jenrick, then Kamala Harris.
Got rid of the King.
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring0 -
They've conceded a goal in the first minute. That's more how I'd put it.Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.0 -
I called this the other day (and alluded to it in the header.)
No 10 was flat-footed in explaining the details in a way that would have muted the criticism. Reports that Starmer has been given an entire corporate box by Arsenal, worth about £8,000 a game, for security reasons were inaccurate.
The prime minister owns season tickets for him and his son, which he continues to pay for. He has been able to take two seats in a box, moving around each game so he is never in the same place twice, a requirement of his security team. Starmer has already twice paid the difference between the value of his seats and those he has been given. The sums are “a few hundred pounds”.
More understandably, his team has not been able to brief about the security threat, which sources say is much higher than it was when Cameron or Sunak sat in the stands. This is because Islamist extremists are targeting Starmer and senior cabinet ministers over the government’s approach to the war in Gaza.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/a-masterclass-in-bad-management-sir-keir-starmers-rude-awakening-mgt9jxp682 -
If it's as bad as I fear I'll be going to join my friends in Aus or the US. One of my juniors is a postgrad and her marginal rate is almost 50% on less than £50k!mercator said:
Bloody funnySean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.
And as I shall keep saying every day until 29 October there is nothing to do until 30 October except point and laugh and dig out sleaze stories. And if the budget is the best budget theoretically possible if JM Keynes were the chancellor, people will hate it. But in fact it will be a misconceived heap of shit.1 -
If they did we'd need a General Election. The Labour Party would be crushed and we would have the ultimate anti-corruption coalition of Jenrick and Farage.Stark_Dawning said:Seriously, is there a case for Sir Keir, Reeves and Rayner simply to resign? Drastic but it could be spun as the ultimate government relaunch and the Bidden-Harris handover cited as a legitimate 'game-changing' model. As things stand this clearly isn't working.
0 -
Thats what i said. Interestingly when people are losing arguments they always criticize punctuation. Human nature i guess.SandyRentool said:
Tonight.TomW said:
Its coming apart because many people are skint. Lost count of the number of conversations ive had where its"What you doing tonite" "Oh just chilling".Sean_F said:
I’m amazed at how rapidly this government has come apart.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's Labour's bloody class warfare that has come back to haunt them.Leon said:
As an occasional travel writer, my guess is a trip like that would cost at least £6k and maybe much moreTheScreamingEagles said:
I mean I did New Year in New York in 2008 and it was north of £1,000 night then.Leon said:
Yes. Its a preposterous lie, and now a double lieTheScreamingEagles said:
The great big red flag about the story is that they viewed it as a £250 a night place.Leon said:Times Exclusive:
“Rayner did not declare that her friend joined her on holiday”
(Paywall)
If this is that NYC NYE jaunt, then this maybe strays from highly dubious massaging of monies involved - to outright fraud against the taxpayer?
Could be a resigning matter?
I mean, stick another zero on there and she might be right.
That's what is going to cause her huge problems.
Also, here she is at Labour Conference loudly saying:
“There’s one rule for them, and one rule for all of us”
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1777091920449212646?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I quite like Rayner - at least she’s got some spark of life - but this could be fatal. The hypocrisy is off the dial
Why does she not admit that? Is there some rule about accepting sums over a certain level? Or is it just coz it looks so bad - “yeah I had a free ten grand holibobs, soz”
You cannot portray yourself as a man/woman of the people when you're cadging £6k holidays so best keep schtum about the latter.-1 -
The Telegraph says a similar flat in the same building is priced at $7,000 a month, call it £5,000 a month, call it £1,250 a week and there's what the sainted Angela claimed.Leon said:
lolwilliamglenn said:I suspect Rayner arrived at the figure by estimating how much she would have spent on a week's holiday if paying for herself rather than the value of the specific trip in question.
“Ok I got a free ten grand holiday but if paying for myself I’d have done a coach trip to Whitby, had some chips on the seafront, then got a bus home, costing £73, so I declare this a £73 holiday”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/19/angela-rayner-new-year-luxury-manhattan-flat-lord-alli/ (£££)
Add in a bit of fudge around airline flights and five days not a whole week, and now sharing with another MP, and suddenly the scandal is blurred.
0
This discussion has been closed.