“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
If France is the model and we get AV like their second ballot then the LDs would be the likely beneficiaries, being the centrist fiscal realist party Macron's party now is. Indeed many of Macron's PMs have also come from Les Republicains, including the current one, so you could also see a return to something like the old Tory-LD coalition maybe with Labour splitting between Starmer and New Labour loyalists and others going to Corbyn and Your Party and the Greens, the UK equivalent of Melenchon's block. Reform meanwhile would be the party of the Nationalist anti immigration right like RN with some libertarian Thatcherites too.
For the Tories, Cleverly may be the best answer for the next GE, most likely to at least hold the 24% who voted for Sunak in 2024 and who did not hate the last government. Cleverly can also point out net immigration is now falling due to the tighter visa wage requirements he and Sunak brought in, enabling him to focus on opposing Labour's tax rises and the economy
Ok. You have been making a clearly tactical case for Cleverly to take over after the inevitable debacle next spring, but actually what is the pitch that he can make that brings the Tories back into the frame? Survival is only the first stage of the Tories hierarchy of needs, they also need to acquire a distinctive and positive pitch to the voters and the two are linked together. Michael Howard was able to create a strategy that steadied the ship and after another Parliament generated sufficient momentum to get David Cameron into number 10. Howard has a first class brain and a streak of steel- "something of the night"- but I am not convinced that James Cleverly has either of these things. Though, given the very small leadership pool in the Conservative Parliamentary party, I could see that he might be the best you have. In that case its a two parliament recovery program, with the ultimate victory coming under a leader not yet in the House of Commons.
Thoughts?
(at least Kemi is not as nasty or dim as IDS though)
Survival IS the priority until the next general election and holding 2024 Sunak voters. The Tories have no other purpose beyond that, certainly until they have at least kept second ahead of Reform at the next GE and Farage left the scene. Then yes at subsequent GEs maybe they could use someone like Jenrick to win back Reform voters and try and win again.
Cleverly at least would do the Howard job of being an experienced former Great Office of State holder like Howard, with a bit more charisma if a few less brains. The situation under Kemi is far worse than under IDS, IDS regularly polled over 30%.
That Tobias Elwood article in the Times is an excellent insight into how and why the Tories are fucked. But not in the way he’d like
He presents zero solutions. He has no clue. It’s just “let the right defect to Reform” and then somehow the Tories will return because… crickets. His prescriptions are as vacuous as Starmer’s
“National renewal”. “We need a consensus”. I kept waiting for “smash the gangs”
They are doomed
He is falling into the trap of thinking that there are lots of people sitting around desperately waiting for a centrist, moderate Tory Party to emerge.
A number of those voters have already fled elsewhere. Their worldview is now much more in tune with the LDs and in some cases Labour. The ones that do still exist are not numerous enough to gift the Tories an election winning majority on their own, or maybe even to retain second party status.
Like it or not, the party needs some the populist elements of the right in order to maintain its relevance. It does not need to become “hard right”, but it does need to talk to some of the popular key themes and constituencies . There are too many people on the right who have sympathies with the Reform message to ignore them.
In triathlon news: the UK has real strength in middle and long-distance women's triathlon. The T100 (*) women's race is going on, and the top three near the end of the run are all Brits, and six of the top 10.
(*) A 100KM race involving a 2km swim, 80km bike and 18km run
Interesting interview on BBC News last night with a few of Tommy Robinson's flag wavers. They were asked why they chose to follow the several times convicted Tommy?
They said they were just ordinary working people who thought it was time that the English reclaimed their country. They were publicans and said Tommy represented the working class. When they were asked what they meant by 'The English' they preferred not to say
This is where the 'White British' shite that spread recently - including on here - is so pernicious. It's not just about Muslims; it's not just about boat people. It's about anyone who is seen as being 'different'.
The ugliness of the people on that march cannot be exaggerated. The confusion between them and the Faragists if such a confusion exists is probably a good thing. No self respecting person would want to tarnished by association with those gruesome fascists
One encounters a better class of fascist in Provence.
They're not bad in Luton. Reeta Chakrabati interviews some Tommy marchers
I think those are quite possibly people encouraged to come forward with prepared lines; that's what they do in most places. Bussed-in people saying "we are ordinary locals", whilst the media are too busy or too stupid to do homework, dig a little, and ask the difficult questions.
That would never happen with the counter demonstrators of course.
I'm aware of more substantial evidence for pretence on the Tommy side, and bits and pieces on the other.
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
I’m more worried about them screwing with the format than the choice of presenter. I fear being suddenly exhorted to “let us know what you think on 0798321457 or on X about Joseph Wright of Derby’s An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump“ or any attempt to crowbar in a new topic which has anything to do with current social considerations.
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
I’m more worried about them screwing with the format than the choice of presenter. I fear being suddenly exhorted to “let us know what you think on 0798321457 or on X about Joseph Wright of Derby’s An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump“ or any attempt to crowbar in a new topic which has anything to do with current social considerations.
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
Scrapping Platitude of the Day would nevertheless be a smart move for Today
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
Or Matthew Goodwin. Or any number of rightwing intellectuals. But of course it's much more comfortable for you if you can portray all firm rightwingers as mindless thugs or silly MPs
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
I’m more worried about them screwing with the format than the choice of presenter. I fear being suddenly exhorted to “let us know what you think on 0798321457 or on X about Joseph Wright of Derby’s An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump“ or any attempt to crowbar in a new topic which has anything to do with current social considerations.
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
Scrapping Platitude of the Day would nevertheless be a smart move for Today
Indeed, although, despite being not remotely religious, I find Prayer for today earlier in the morning usually quite pleasant and less preachy.
That Tobias Elwood article in the Times is an excellent insight into how and why the Tories are fucked. But not in the way he’d like
He presents zero solutions. He has no clue. It’s just “let the right defect to Reform” and then somehow the Tories will return because… crickets. His prescriptions are as vacuous as Starmer’s
“National renewal”. “We need a consensus”. I kept waiting for “smash the gangs”
They are doomed
He is falling into the trap of thinking that there are lots of people sitting around desperately waiting for a centrist, moderate Tory Party to emerge.
A number of those voters have already fled elsewhere. Their worldview is now much more in tune with the LDs and in some cases Labour. The ones that do still exist are not numerous enough to gift the Tories an election winning majority on their own, or maybe even to retain second party status.
Like it or not, the party needs some the populist elements of the right in order to maintain its relevance. It does not need to become “hard right”, but it does need to talk to some of the popular key themes and constituencies . There are too many people on the right who have sympathies with the Reform message to ignore them.
To be fair, Ellwood doesn't need to fall into any trap. He is perfectly capable of inviting ridicule by his own behaviour:
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
On topic, the local council by-elections tell the story. The Conservatives are just holding on in a few islands of strength, often helped by split votes. They are losing a few seats in the south to the LDs and more seats elsewhere to Reform.
In my neck of the woods, the last Conservative councillor on Newham was defeated in 1994 but the party has, until 2022, always finished second (with one exception, 2006, when Respect got 23% of the vote Borough wide but won only 3 seats). Across the Borough, it was the primary alternative vote for those not wanting to vote Labour and attracted support in both the Muslim and especially the Hindu communities among the high earners.
With the coming of the Greens and Reform, the Conservatives are facing a vicious squeeze here locally. The Greens are attracting the good old "woke lefty" voters in Stratford and in the other new tower blocks while Reform are hacking away at both the indigenous white vote (such as it is) and the socially conservative HIndus.
Thursday's Plaistow North by-election was an unmitigated disaster for Newham Conservatives, In former times, they wouldn't have expected to win but to have run a strong second as they did in East Ham Central in a 2021 by-election (30.5%) or in Wall End in 2023 (27.5%), They ended up with 6% (just 123 votes), down nearly two thirds on their 2022 showing. True, Labour lost 60% of their vote as well. Reform got an astonishing 16% in an overwhelmingly Muslim ward.
It's no longer a question of whether the Conservatives can win any seats on Newham (they have as much chance as the LDs, that is, zero) and contrasts to when these seats were contested in 1968, when we also had a deeply unpopular Labour Government and the Conservatives won 6 seats, three in Forest Gate and three in Manor Park, but whether the Conservatives will stand a full slate of candidates. The party will probably finish fourth Borough wide behind Labour, the Newham Independents and the Greens and the 14% won in 2022 could easily be 5-6%.
I don't know whether Labour will retain a majority on Newham Council - the very fact I write that shows you how far the Newham Independents have come. Could Reform win a seat in Royal Albert or Manor Park? Not beyond the realms of possibility but the splitting of the anti-Labour vote gives the current administration a chance of saurviving albeit on a vastly reduced vote share.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
I’m more worried about them screwing with the format than the choice of presenter. I fear being suddenly exhorted to “let us know what you think on 0798321457 or on X about Joseph Wright of Derby’s An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump“ or any attempt to crowbar in a new topic which has anything to do with current social considerations.
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
Much in this. it seems to me that BBC radio (don't watch BBC telly) does best when the genre is distinctive, and when it entirely renounces the public sharing of ignorance which infests Radio 5, LBC and some others.
So, to take a random example, at 6 am this morning on R4 was an excellent programme, worth its 24 minutes, on Fair Isle (population under 60), ranging widely from primary school to great skuas via knitware and community cooperation.
What doesn't work is, as R4 Today is doing, is to mix that general interest/magaziney stuff with a hard current news programme. A parallel issue is that Radio 3 doesn't work as competition to Classic FM, but works intermittently as a provider of culture. It has however mostly abandoned its old Third Prog remit of intellectual thoughtfulness.
Back to R4 Today. Iyt would be much improved if they weren't willing to interview every government hack just because they are offered. Editing interviews so as to remove blather where they don't answer questions, and explaining why it is removed, would be an improvement.
For those who follow these things, the protracted and extended term of the group of Surrey County Councillors elected in 2021 continues to take its toll and there are three by-elections scheduled for 16th October in Caterham Valley, Camberley West and Guildford South East.
A clear attempt to divide resources you'd think but it's still conceivable the LDs could walk off with all three.
There are also, on the same day, district council by elections in Spelthorne, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge so it's a kind of a Surrey mini-General Election day.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
Yep. I reckon many of our fash curious friends would be astonished at how many of their beloved WWC would agree.
I've had a chance to read the header properly with a coffee. Very thought provoking.
I wonder how long it will be before Brexit is a dead horse? BoJo & Co had their chance and blew it, not even putting in place for example the required customs inspections - so any food at all could get in, whether fit or not. How long before we all are looking "forward, not back." Who said that?
I think this is perhaps contentious, but it is also ambiguous:
Protestantism started out as the religion of the urban elite, while the periphery clung to their traditional Catholicism.
On the one side, "urban" was where people could write and publish. On the other hand, there were movements in the countryside, and Protestant landowners offering havens. And there were also Reformers and Separatists. There were also 'lower class' movements I think. But it also changed over time.
Quite a few Westcountry rural meeting house and chapel congregations - for instance this one which I found on the net recently. (Not been. Would like to visit sometime.) And of course many Dissenters were weavers and farmers etc. so quite un-urban in those days.
The Quaker networks were quite something, certainly in the C18 and C19, [edit] to deal with the non-urban areas - also acted as business networks of course.
Literacy would be an issue of course. In Lowland Scotland, it was fairly high by UK standards in the C16-C18, thanks to the Reformers, who rightly perceived it as a key means towards the Godly Commonwealth.*
*Not the same thing as the Cromwellian one.
Edit: forgot to add - very strong correlation with Liberal and even Radical politics of course. Bright, etc.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
All politics is relative. The one more likely to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and five yearly free and fair elections. Corbyn.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
All politics is relative. The one more likely to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and five yearly free and fair elections. Corbyn.
Indeed. And in an essentially similar vein, Robinson is a violent bully, whereas Corbyn is naive.
Very inadequate edition of Newsnight last night. First its budget was cut, and now it's time has been cut. Most of the reporting has gone, and presenters have been imported from five live. As one might expect, the results are that the tone of the programme ismoving towards banal, rushed infotainment.
It is like tax, you see. Cut the BBC, defund the BBC, close down the BBC – except for the programmes I watch and the stations I listen to.
But the changes have been implemented by BBC management. They have actively CHOSEN to dumb down Newsnight. Then look at some of the programming choices they have supported.
It doesn't give confidence that they know what they are doing.
And to think, they could have been the world's pre-eminent news brand.
That is what I am getting at. The BBC has had to make cuts. You are complaining they cut the programmes you watch, instead of cutting the programmes you do not watch. And others will make the same complaints, albeit with slightly different programmes in mind.
I think the fundamental issue is that the BBC has chosen viewing figures as the yardstick by which to measure its success.
For me, that misunderstands its mission: “To inform, to educate, to entertain”
The BBC is emphasising the third and chasing ratings vs trying to lift the population.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
I would never vote for Robinson under any circumstances
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
I think a pilot scheme is in order for In Our Time. I want to hear Lee Anderson, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson do the Lord Bragg bit for In Our Time on, to take real examples, Slime Moulds, The Critique of Pure Reason, The Gordon Riots.
I’m more worried about them screwing with the format than the choice of presenter. I fear being suddenly exhorted to “let us know what you think on 0798321457 or on X about Joseph Wright of Derby’s An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump“ or any attempt to crowbar in a new topic which has anything to do with current social considerations.
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
Much in this. it seems to me that BBC radio (don't watch BBC telly) does best when the genre is distinctive, and when it entirely renounces the public sharing of ignorance which infests Radio 5, LBC and some others.
So, to take a random example, at 6 am this morning on R4 was an excellent programme, worth its 24 minutes, on Fair Isle (population under 60), ranging widely from primary school to great skuas via knitware and community cooperation.
What doesn't work is, as R4 Today is doing, is to mix that general interest/magaziney stuff with a hard current news programme. A parallel issue is that Radio 3 doesn't work as competition to Classic FM, but works intermittently as a provider of culture. It has however mostly abandoned its old Third Prog remit of intellectual thoughtfulness.
Back to R4 Today. Iyt would be much improved if they weren't willing to interview every government hack just because they are offered. Editing interviews so as to remove blather where they don't answer questions, and explaining why it is removed, would be an improvement.
I do get the impression, and I might be unfairly wrong to them, but I imagine the production team of Today being somewhat younger than the average today listener and in production meetings they get a little excited about the latest Taylor Swift news, or the free Brittney Spears campaign (that went well btw removing her care) or whatever is popping up on their socials and think they need to cover it.
I then imagine that if anyone on the team says, “is this really what this programme is for?” The confident production team say that they want to build new listeners and anyway, the listeners need to stop being so stuffy, we are right and good and it’s the listeners who need to change.
It’s possible none of them listened to Today before they moved across and don’t understand that your general Today listener doesn’t need some musical excerpt blasted out at 6.03 am in the round up of what is coming up. It’s really not pleasant and it just adds to the annoyance with the almost daily obsession with crowbarring in music. There are about 30 other bbc stations for music, leave it out unless it’s about some seriously famous musician dying.
Then there is the thing that’s crept in alongside the “let us know what you think” bs which is the adverts for the BBC. I’m fucking listening to the bbc I don’t need an advert telling me how wonderful the bbc is and how it’s represents “list of towns around Britain”. I also don’t want trailers for BBC programmes - it’s all nonsense wasting time for what the programme should be about and infuriating when the interviewer has to cut off an interview with some general or diplomat or politician when there has been ten minutes of self congratulatory ads, trailers and what Jackie from Devon most likes about her favourite beach.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
I would never vote for Robinson under any circumstances
Fair enough.
Would you go the extra mile, and vote for the alternative, no matter how unpalatable that was?
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
How about a different game. Imagine Britain hasn't been radicalised and polarised and the centrists are triumphant: Your choices at the next election are:
1. A party led by Sir Keir Starmer 2. A party led by Sir Ed Davey
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are those who think Gail's is the best bakery and those who don't.
Trump has just taken a shotgun and blown both feet off the US economy with the stroke of a pen...
H1-B fee, $100k per employee per year
As often with Trump he is kinda of right that the H1-B has been abused, it was too cheap, and a backdoor to bring in cheaper Labour, a lot from India with some dubious qualifications or just to undercut US workers. But it also is how most tech companies bring in genuine talent.
Even the likes of Google aren't going to pay $100k per year per employee for all the best of the best of the best, who were already probably not using H1-B route anyway. Canada will be rubbing his hands, as big tech can easily setup more offices in the likes of Vancouver (especially the ones like Adobe that already have big presence in Seattle).
Adobe wouldn’t be the first big tech company based in Seattle that I would have thought of!
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
He’s also too stupid to work out how to upend the system.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
Yep. I reckon many of our fash curious friends would be astonished at how many of their beloved WWC would agree.
The people with the worst track record in that department the aristocratic moderate right. The sort who don't like the fascists, obviously, but are happy for them to defeat the left. Because they assume that after that, the moderate-right aristos will be able to "control" them.
Mickey-mouse subjects will be closed to free up more courses with jobs at the end, like golf course management.
(Oh, and there seems to be an awful lot of chemistry on the physics blackboard.)
A government spokesperson said it was increasing funding for public research and innovation by more than £22.5bn a year by 2029-30, representing a 3% real-terms increase compared with 2025-26.
“Our £86bn for public research and development until 2030 will help the UK’s world-class universities continue to lead discoveries,” a spokesperson said.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
I would never vote for Robinson under any circumstances
Fair enough.
Would you go the extra mile, and vote for the alternative, no matter how unpalatable that was?
Corbyn, say, or Starmer?
I would need to understand what the implications would be but Robinson is never ever going to get my vote
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
He’s also too stupid to work out how to upend the system.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
Interesting, thanks
I'm not a fan of Corbyn (I don't think he's the devil, either...), and this week's event with Your{arty highlight what a shitshow of a government he would 'run'. In fact, his time as Labour leader also show that. Like Starmer, he lacks many of the traits needed in a PM - although in a very different way from Starmer.
But Robinson? He's far farther to the right that Corbyn is to the left, and at least Corbyn has a hefty amount of experience in parliament.
It would be Corbyn every time. But I'd really prefer a much wider choice.
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Unfair, we really have to save the white supremacist category for those who want all Muslims to be put in detention camps, believe black people are stupider than white people and are self-confessed racists. Without that differentiation we would exist in sheer fashy anarchy.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
Absolutely. A choice like that comes down to personality rather than politics. Imagine someone with the same politics as Corbyn but a ruthless streak; Galloway, perhaps; and it would be a different matter entirely.
With a choice between ruthless right wing and ruthless left wing, it simply comes down to a matter of survival. Provided you’re not in a group likely to be persecuted by the ruthless right wing, it would be easier to keep your head down and survive, whereas if you are in such a group you’re probably deported, or dead. Ruthless left wing is far more capricious, and you merely need a jealous neighbour to be denounced, tortured and then carted away for some imaginary crime, probably along with many of your equally innocent relatives.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
Absolutely. A choice like that comes down to personality rather than politics. Imagine someone with the same politics as Corbyn but a ruthless streak; Galloway, perhaps; and it would be a different matter entirely.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Did anyone play the first Dragon Age game where you had to choose who to support in elections to lead the Dwarves against the Blight? You could choose between an elitist, bigoted traditionalist who supported the traditional democratic process and a liberal reformer who wanted to limit future elections until his reform were carried out. I spent ages on that dialogue screen until I concluded that it's better to choose someone you hate but can remove than someone you like at preset but that you're stuck with.
Trump has just taken a shotgun and blown both feet off the US economy with the stroke of a pen...
H1-B fee, $100k per employee per year
As often with Trump he is kinda of right that the H1-B has been abused, it was too cheap, and a backdoor to bring in cheaper Labour, a lot from India with some dubious qualifications or just to undercut US workers. But it also is how most tech companies bring in genuine talent.
Even the likes of Google aren't going to pay $100k per year per employee for all the best of the best of the best, who were already probably not using H1-B route anyway. Canada will be rubbing his hands, as big tech can easily setup more offices in the likes of Vancouver (especially the ones like Adobe that already have big presence in Seattle).
Adobe wouldn’t be the first big tech company based in Seattle that I would have thought of!
Well there is another small scrappy tech start-up beginning with A there, they flog books and stuff, but nobody has probably heard of them, so I thought I would go with a household name like Adobe.
Trump has just taken a shotgun and blown both feet off the US economy with the stroke of a pen...
H1-B fee, $100k per employee per year
As often with Trump he is kinda of right that the H1-B has been abused, it was too cheap, and a backdoor to bring in cheaper Labour, a lot from India with some dubious qualifications or just to undercut US workers. But it also is how most tech companies bring in genuine talent.
Even the likes of Google aren't going to pay $100k per year per employee for all the best of the best of the best, who were already probably not using H1-B route anyway. Canada will be rubbing his hands, as big tech can easily setup more offices in the likes of Vancouver (especially the ones like Adobe that already have big presence in Seattle).
Adobe wouldn’t be the first big tech company based in Seattle that I would have thought of!
Well there is another small scrappy tech start-up beginning with A there, they flog books and stuff, but nobody has probably heard of them, so I thought I would go with a household name like Adobe.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
Once again our almost brown-shirted friend is in the minority, amongst this intelligent community at least.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
Absolutely. A choice like that comes down to personality rather than politics. Imagine someone with the same politics as Corbyn but a ruthless streak; Galloway, perhaps; and it would be a different matter entirely.
Galloway vs Robinson?
At that point I might choose Siena!
That's a much more interesting, painful version of the question. But again, only one of them has done quite a lot of prison time for things that really disqualify a chap from power.
Somewhere between Farage and Robinson, there's a line between "I hate your politics but you have a right to be involved" and "You're beyond the pale".
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
That Tobias Elwood article in the Times is an excellent insight into how and why the Tories are fucked. But not in the way he’d like
He presents zero solutions. He has no clue. It’s just “let the right defect to Reform” and then somehow the Tories will return because… crickets. His prescriptions are as vacuous as Starmer’s
“National renewal”. “We need a consensus”. I kept waiting for “smash the gangs”
They are doomed
He is falling into the trap of thinking that there are lots of people sitting around desperately waiting for a centrist, moderate Tory Party to emerge.
A number of those voters have already fled elsewhere. Their worldview is now much more in tune with the LDs and in some cases Labour. The ones that do still exist are not numerous enough to gift the Tories an election winning majority on their own, or maybe even to retain second party status.
Like it or not, the party needs some the populist elements of the right in order to maintain its relevance. It does not need to become “hard right”, but it does need to talk to some of the popular key themes and constituencies . There are too many people on the right who have sympathies with the Reform message to ignore them.
To be fair, Ellwood doesn't need to fall into any trap. He is perfectly capable of inviting ridicule by his own behaviour:
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
I could never support Corbyn under any circumstances. Thank goodness we have more moderate alternatives to choose from.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn. He would be an awful PM but I don’t think he would try to upend the system
I could never support Corbyn under any circumstances.
Mrs Sultana is now consulting lawyers. Why is it left wing splinter groups so often allow principles to disappear out the window when personal ambition is at stake?
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
One is a criminal with convictions for violence, they other a rather disorganized, generally pacifist far left MP. It is not even a question, however to misquote Churchill "I hope not to be called upon to survive in a world under a government of either of these dispensations".
“This is completely unfashionable, but why should people come here and get benefits that several generations of my family, who lived in terraced houses, have worked for and been in armies for? It’s a complicated problem that has to be addressed without fear or favour. We need to regulate it.”
Far from being unfashionable, Reform-ism iis all the rage, and many people are susceptible.
On a different topic, his vetsion of In Our Time has gone from Rado 4, which is another gloomy development for any more advanced discussion on BBC TV or radio, similarly to when he left Start The Week.
There are people capable of taking on the In Our Time role in due course. Jonathan Freedland, Amol Rajan, Rory Stewart could all have a go.
As to Lord Bragg's question; I live in north Cumberland where he comes from and where there are fewer people from other countries than most places. The ones I know (origins: Congo, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Turkey) are all in working families and work in: factories, agriculture, social care, NHS, driving.
Farmers and factories value them for their work ethic. Until recently social care was 100% staffed in the area from locals, but in the end the institutions couldn't cope without people from abroad. Farmers often complain they can't get local workers.
Three fucking tedious centrist Dads. But of course
If the BBC really wants to renew itself it should get a radical right wing presenter. White working class. No nonsense. Frighten the horses. Try it
You are far too irritating to get the gig, forget about it.
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
Yet had he simply got out of a car and walked in to the conference, you probably wouldn’t be starting a post with “I see…”
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Corbyn, every time.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
One is a criminal with convictions for violence, they other a rather disorganized, generally pacifist far left MP. It is not even a question, however to misquote Churchill "I hope not to be called upon to survive in a world under a government of either of these dispensations".
Yes. It would be Corbyn, no question. While he could do a lot of economic damage, at the end of the day he is just a left wing politician who is wrong about a lot of things. He has shown he is at least able to form a (somewhat functioning) collegiate team around him, and to be willing to be relatively pragmatic at working within the system. Robinson is a different proposition entirely.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
I’ve always preferred the idea that Putin is buggered to death by a Randy pig whilst his eyes are forced open and head angled so he has to watch it on a screen in front of him. I’m nice like that.
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
One can only imagine Davey's aim is to get his photo in the Sunday papers because political journalists will cover the conference anyway. There must be LibDems yearning for the halcyon days of Jo Swinson rather than Davey's unserious, student politics approach. There are 70-ish LibDem MPs and they are being outfaced by Reform who could fit in a taxi. At least Farage has policies, vague and impractical though they may be. Ed Davey thinks the height of statecraft is not having dinner.
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
Yet had he simply got out of a car and walked in to the conference, you probably wouldn’t be starting a post with “I see…”
True. I also wouldnt be even more convinced of his complete inappropriateness as a serious politician. Others will make their own calculation on that front
And so ends @GarethoftheVale2 / @Garethofthevale limited-episode series on "The Challenge For..." the various parties. I quite liked it, especially as other articles tend to be one-offs or part of a rolling series. Although Gareth has put the links in his article, I'll do it again here for continuity purposes
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
I’ve always preferred the idea that Putin is buggered to death by a Randy pig whilst his eyes are forced open and head angled so he has to watch it on a screen in front of him. I’m nice like that.
That might be nastier for him, but it would be quick. My system would be a slow punishment, *and* raise funds for a good cause. People like him hate being embarrassed and appearing weak (they *love* embarrassing others and making others look weak...), so he'd hate having people show them how pathetic he really is.
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
One can only imagine Davey's aim is to get his photo in the Sunday papers because political journalists will cover the conference anyway. There must be LibDems yearning for the halcyon days of Jo Swinson rather than Davey's unserious, student politics approach. There are 70-ish LibDem MPs and they are being outfaced by Reform who could fit in a taxi. At least Farage has policies, vague and impractical though they may be. Ed Davey thinks the height of statecraft is not having dinner.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
I’ve always preferred the idea that Putin is buggered to death by a Randy pig whilst his eyes are forced open and head angled so he has to watch it on a screen in front of him. I’m nice like that.
That might be nastier for him, but it would be quick. My system would be a slow punishment, *and* raise funds for a good cause. People like him hate being embarrassed and appearing weak (they *love* embarrassing others and making others look weak...), so he'd hate having people show them how pathetic he really is.
Hey, I can dream.
Pigs can be very considerate lovers and take their sweet sweet time.
Opinium are advertising their poll tonight again, although they have dialled down the ramping. Just 'eye catching' this week They will be polling weekly through conference season
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
All politics is relative. The one more likely to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and five yearly free and fair elections. Corbyn.
Indeed. And in an essentially similar vein, Robinson is a violent bully, whereas Corbyn is naive.
He's not naive: he's foolish, shallow and silly. Most people focus on his politics (fair enough) but not on the fact that he just can't put them into action. He prefers banging on about ideas, is actively disinterested in the actions necessary to create and run a party, he doesn't have the self-awareness to understand that he is not capable of running a party and shows no sign of developing the skillset necessary to do so.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
One can only imagine Davey's aim is to get his photo in the Sunday papers because political journalists will cover the conference anyway. There must be LibDems yearning for the halcyon days of Jo Swinson rather than Davey's unserious, student politics approach. There are 70-ish LibDem MPs and they are being outfaced by Reform who could fit in a taxi. At least Farage has policies, vague and impractical though they may be. Ed Davey thinks the height of statecraft is not having dinner.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
All politics is relative. The one more likely to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and five yearly free and fair elections. Corbyn.
Indeed. And in an essentially similar vein, Robinson is a violent bully, whereas Corbyn is naive.
He's not naive: he's foolish, shallow and silly. Most people focus on his politics (fair enough) but not on the fact that he just can't put them into action. He prefers banging on about ideas, is actively disinterested in the actions necessary to create and run a party, he doesn't have the self-awareness to understand that he is not capable of running a party and shows no sign of developing the skillset necessary to do so.
The problem many people on the left have is that power might mean slightly compromising principles. Therefore it is easier to talk about those principles than it is to wield power.
Whereas many on the right have no problem with compromising their principles in order to get what they want. And the hard left, when they do that, often become quite like the hard right, as neither have principles any more.
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I saw on X that the reason is that any airfields would be so close to the Russian border they would be trashed within minutes of war breaking out. So any air defence has to be prodlvided from further west.
Although I suppose they coud have an entirely expeditionary air force and keep it in Poland. But as Estonia is so small it would probably be too small to be viable
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
I'd go with Tommy
He's a xenophobic thug, but he's not a traitor
Corbyn is, to my mind, a traitor - remember Salisbury, and the IRA - and also in cahoots with Islamists, "our friends in Hamas"
Under Tommy Britain would be a horrible place. Under Corbyn Britain would be handed over to Putin, or ISIS, or both
Mrs Sultana is now consulting lawyers. Why is it left wing splinter groups so often allow principles to disappear out the window when personal ambition is at stake?
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
I see Davey has rocked up to conference with a mace at the head of a marching band..... I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
One can only imagine Davey's aim is to get his photo in the Sunday papers because political journalists will cover the conference anyway. There must be LibDems yearning for the halcyon days of Jo Swinson rather than Davey's unserious, student politics approach. There are 70-ish LibDem MPs and they are being outfaced by Reform who could fit in a taxi. At least Farage has policies, vague and impractical though they may be. Ed Davey thinks the height of statecraft is not having dinner.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I saw on X that the reason is that any airfields would be so close to the Russian border they would be trashed within minutes of war breaking out. So any air defence has to be prodlvided from further west.
Although I suppose they coud have an entirely expeditionary air force and keep it in Poland. But as Estonia is so small it would probably be too small to be viable
AIUI the response to the incursion came from Italian jets once in Estonia. Outside, Finnish and Swedish. Which means an impressive range of jets were probably used - Italian F35; Swedish Gripens, and perhaps Finnish FA-18s.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I'm really quite surprised that this incursion didn't result in shot down Migs.
That fact it didn't should worry the Baltics. And by extension Eastern Europe....
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Mrs Sultana is now consulting lawyers. Why is it left wing splinter groups so often allow principles to disappear out the window when personal ambition is at stake?
Sultana is currently consulting lawyers ?
Raisin' the ante!
Hilarious.
The laughter guzzler would be impressed
Sorry Taz. I have kept away for the most part for the last few days. But I have just smashed myself in the face as a punishment for pissing you off with that post.
Mrs Sultana is now consulting lawyers. Why is it left wing splinter groups so often allow principles to disappear out the window when personal ambition is at stake?
Sultana is currently consulting lawyers ?
Raisin' the ante!
Hilarious.
The laughter guzzler would be impressed
Sorry Taz. I have kept away for the most part for the last few days. But I have just smashed myself in the face as a punishment for pissing you off with that post.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Farage or Corbyn? Forced choice. No alternative. One or t'other, and you have to vote. No absentions, no drawing dogs' penises on the ballot, @IanB2
For me it's obviously Farage, I've already voted for him multiple times in EU elex, and will likely vote for him in 2029 in the GE
What about the rest of PB? Farage or Corbyn. Forced choice. Show your working
All politics is relative. Farage. More likely than Corbyn to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and free and fair elections every five years. More likely (though not very) to avoid further bankrupting the country. More likely to support our friends and not back our enemies. Better understanding of the balance of private enterprise and the state's role in society.
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I saw on X that the reason is that any airfields would be so close to the Russian border they would be trashed within minutes of war breaking out. So any air defence has to be prodlvided from further west.
Although I suppose they coud have an entirely expeditionary air force and keep it in Poland. But as Estonia is so small it would probably be too small to be viable
There is one active airbase, at a place called Amari which is actually near the coast, about 10-15km inland. So about 180km from the Russian border - as good as it gets, but not a lot.
Farage or Corbyn? Forced choice. No alternative. One or t'other, and you have to vote. No absentions, no drawing dogs' penises on the ballot, @IanB2
For me it's obviously Farage, I've already voted for him multiple times in EU elex, and will likely vote for him in 2029 in the GE
What about the rest of PB? Farage or Corbyn. Forced choice. Show your working
All politics is relative. Farage. More likely than Corbyn to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and free and fair elections every five years. More likely (though not very) to avoid further bankrupting the country. More likely to support our friends and not back our enemies. Better understanding of the balance of private enterprise and the state's role in society.
Comments
Cleverly at least would do the Howard job of being an experienced former Great Office of State holder like Howard, with a bit more charisma if a few less brains. The situation under Kemi is far worse than under IDS, IDS regularly polled over 30%.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/sep/20/quarter-of-uk-university-physics-departments-at-risk-of-closing-survey-finds
Mickey-mouse subjects will be closed to free up more courses with jobs at the end, like golf course management.
(Oh, and there seems to be an awful lot of chemistry on the physics blackboard.)
A number of those voters have already fled elsewhere. Their worldview is now much more in tune with the LDs and in some cases Labour. The ones that do still exist are not numerous enough to gift the Tories an election winning majority on their own, or maybe even to retain second party status.
Like it or not, the party needs some the populist elements of the right in order to maintain its relevance. It does not need to become “hard right”, but it does need to talk to some of the popular key themes and constituencies . There are too many people on the right who have sympathies with the Reform message to ignore them.
(*) A 100KM race involving a 2km swim, 80km bike and 18km run
They are ruining Today and need to just be told to stop messing with formats in some misguided attempt to increase listener numbers when there are plenty of radio programmes to suit people who didn’t like the existing format anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66797794
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
On topic, the local council by-elections tell the story. The Conservatives are just holding on in a few islands of strength, often helped by split votes. They are losing a few seats in the south to the LDs and more seats elsewhere to Reform.
In my neck of the woods, the last Conservative councillor on Newham was defeated in 1994 but the party has, until 2022, always finished second (with one exception, 2006, when Respect got 23% of the vote Borough wide but won only 3 seats). Across the Borough, it was the primary alternative vote for those not wanting to vote Labour and attracted support in both the Muslim and especially the Hindu communities among the high earners.
With the coming of the Greens and Reform, the Conservatives are facing a vicious squeeze here locally. The Greens are attracting the good old "woke lefty" voters in Stratford and in the other new tower blocks while Reform are hacking away at both the indigenous white vote (such as it is) and the socially conservative HIndus.
Thursday's Plaistow North by-election was an unmitigated disaster for Newham Conservatives, In former times, they wouldn't have expected to win but to have run a strong second as they did in East Ham Central in a 2021 by-election (30.5%) or in Wall End in 2023 (27.5%), They ended up with 6% (just 123 votes), down nearly two thirds on their 2022 showing. True, Labour lost 60% of their vote as well. Reform got an astonishing 16% in an overwhelmingly Muslim ward.
It's no longer a question of whether the Conservatives can win any seats on Newham (they have as much chance as the LDs, that is, zero) and contrasts to when these seats were contested in 1968, when we also had a deeply unpopular Labour Government and the Conservatives won 6 seats, three in Forest Gate and three in Manor Park, but whether the Conservatives will stand a full slate of candidates. The party will probably finish fourth Borough wide behind Labour, the Newham Independents and the Greens and the 14% won in 2022 could easily be 5-6%.
I don't know whether Labour will retain a majority on Newham Council - the very fact I write that shows you how far the Newham Independents have come. Could Reform win a seat in Royal Albert or Manor Park? Not beyond the realms of possibility but the splitting of the anti-Labour vote gives the current administration a chance of saurviving albeit on a vastly reduced vote share.
Robinson's track record with the law is enough reason on its own to disqualify him from the contest.
So, to take a random example, at 6 am this morning on R4 was an excellent programme, worth its 24 minutes, on Fair Isle (population under 60), ranging widely from primary school to great skuas via knitware and community cooperation.
What doesn't work is, as R4 Today is doing, is to mix that general interest/magaziney stuff with a hard current news programme. A parallel issue is that Radio 3 doesn't work as competition to Classic FM, but works intermittently as a provider of culture. It has however mostly abandoned its old Third Prog remit of intellectual thoughtfulness.
Back to R4 Today. Iyt would be much improved if they weren't willing to interview every government hack just because they are offered. Editing interviews so as to remove blather where they don't answer questions, and explaining why it is removed, would be an improvement.
A clear attempt to divide resources you'd think but it's still conceivable the LDs could walk off with all three.
There are also, on the same day, district council by elections in Spelthorne, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge so it's a kind of a Surrey mini-General Election day.
I reckon many of our fash curious friends would be astonished at how many of their beloved WWC would agree.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/devon/loughwood-meeting-house
The Quaker networks were quite something, certainly in the C18 and C19, [edit] to deal with the non-urban areas - also acted as business networks of course.
Literacy would be an issue of course. In Lowland Scotland, it was fairly high by UK standards in the C16-C18, thanks to the Reformers, who rightly perceived it as a key means towards the Godly Commonwealth.*
*Not the same thing as the Cromwellian one.
Edit: forgot to add - very strong correlation with Liberal and even Radical politics of course. Bright, etc.
For me, that misunderstands its mission: “To inform, to educate, to entertain”
The BBC is emphasising the third and chasing ratings vs trying to lift the population.
I then imagine that if anyone on the team says, “is this really what this programme is for?” The confident production team say that they want to build new listeners and anyway, the listeners need to stop being so stuffy, we are right and good and it’s the listeners who need to change.
It’s possible none of them listened to Today before they moved across and don’t understand that your general Today listener doesn’t need some musical excerpt blasted out at 6.03 am in the round up of what is coming up. It’s really not pleasant and it just adds to the annoyance with the almost daily obsession with crowbarring in music. There are about 30 other bbc stations for music, leave it out unless it’s about some seriously famous musician dying.
Then there is the thing that’s crept in alongside the “let us know what you think” bs which is the adverts for the BBC. I’m fucking listening to the bbc I don’t need an advert telling me how wonderful the bbc is and how it’s represents “list of towns around Britain”. I also don’t want trailers for BBC programmes - it’s all nonsense wasting time for what the programme should be about and infuriating when the interviewer has to cut off an interview with some general or diplomat or politician when there has been ten minutes of self congratulatory ads, trailers and what Jackie from Devon most likes about her favourite beach.
Would you go the extra mile, and vote for the alternative, no matter how unpalatable that was?
Corbyn, say, or Starmer?
1. A party led by Sir Keir Starmer
2. A party led by Sir Ed Davey
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are those who think Gail's is the best bakery and those who don't.
As the line near the end of the song goes.
“Our £86bn for public research and development until 2030 will help the UK’s world-class universities continue to lead discoveries,” a spokesperson said.
He is obnoxious
But Robinson? He's far farther to the right that Corbyn is to the left, and at least Corbyn has a hefty amount of experience in parliament.
It would be Corbyn every time. But I'd really prefer a much wider choice.
With a choice between ruthless right wing and ruthless left wing, it simply comes down to a matter of survival. Provided you’re not in a group likely to be persecuted by the ruthless right wing, it would be easier to keep your head down and survive, whereas if you are in such a group you’re probably deported, or dead. Ruthless left wing is far more capricious, and you merely need a jealous neighbour to be denounced, tortured and then carted away for some imaginary crime, probably along with many of your equally innocent relatives.
At that point I might choose Siena!
Somewhere between Farage and Robinson, there's a line between "I hate your politics but you have a right to be involved" and "You're beyond the pale".
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
He’s gonna be poor but r tommeh would be worse
I was never a fan of the stunts and foolishness but surely now it's flogging a dead horse? If he cant get serious with the utter turmoil everywhere, what is the point of him? (Or by extension his party?)
It is not even a question, however to misquote Churchill "I hope not to be called upon to survive in a world under a government of either of these dispensations".
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
Others will make their own calculation on that front
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/02/the-challenge-for-labour/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/12/the-challenge-for-plaid-cymru/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/21/the-challenge-for-reform-uk/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/07/11/the-challenge-for-the-liberal-democrats/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/07/22/challenge-for-the-snp/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/09/08/the-challenge-for-the-green-parties/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/09/20/the-challenge-for-the-conservatives/
A useful reference, Gareth: thank you very much.
Hey, I can dream.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1969356659123175500?s=19
What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable?
Oh. And foreign passport holder, too.
Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
They will be polling weekly through conference season
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
Whereas many on the right have no problem with compromising their principles in order to get what they want. And the hard left, when they do that, often become quite like the hard right, as neither have principles any more.
Although I suppose they coud have an entirely expeditionary air force and keep it in Poland. But as Estonia is so small it would probably be too small to be viable
He's a xenophobic thug, but he's not a traitor
Corbyn is, to my mind, a traitor - remember Salisbury, and the IRA - and also in cahoots with Islamists, "our friends in Hamas"
Under Tommy Britain would be a horrible place. Under Corbyn Britain would be handed over to Putin, or ISIS, or both
The laughter guzzler would be impressed
He assures us that he doesn't.
Let's make it harder, as @dixiedean suggests
Farage or Corbyn? Forced choice. No alternative. One or t'other, and you have to vote. No absentions, no drawing dogs' penises on the ballot, @IanB2
For me it's obviously Farage, I've already voted for him multiple times in EU elex, and will likely vote for him in 2029 in the GE
What about the rest of PB? Farage or Corbyn. Forced choice. Show your working
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
- Stephen Christopher Yaxley
- Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon
- Andrew McMaster
- Paul Harris
- Wayne King
- Stephen Lennon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_RobinsonThat fact it didn't should worry the Baltics. And by extension Eastern Europe....
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1969361593981972629?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Both terrible.
There are a number of abandoned ones, though.