- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2968 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 90436
Rishi Sunak is going to be Prime Minister next year and it's going to be fucking awesome.
|>>|| No. 90439
Surprised at Penny Mordaunt numbers, she seems okay - I don't think it can be any of the others as they're too tainted by Brexit, etc.
It is starting to feel like the mid-Nineties again - I read an excellent article today which talked about Labour are successfully (and reasonably) pushing the "incompetence" line, as that allows people to change their vote (competence or incompetence being something that you discover after the fact, whereas policy/plans are before). It's a neat idea, and tallies up with what we've seen this year.
All we need now is some genuine sleaze or criminality and the government will fall - I wonder if/when we'll find out who the "rapist" is. Also, who on earth would want to be in charge of the UK during 2021? It's a poisoned chalice.
|>>|| No. 90440
I think with Mordaunt it's mainly an issue that she's quite unknown; just about everyone ahead of her has their name in the news more often.
I'd imagine any new PM would come in and announce that they've got a clean slate, setting up distance between them and the failings of the current government. If Brexit is out of the way, either 'oven ready' or no deal, then I don't think it'd be a bad time to be PM; just roll your sleeves up and give the impression that you'll do the best you can with the hand you've been dealt.
|>>|| No. 90442
Aren't father-in-laws notorious for chatting shit? If you wanted to shit-stir you would be better off speculating on whether conference season is going ahead.
It's weird to think of how everything has fallen into his lap. Almost as weird as any election debate will look on immigration.
|>>|| No. 90443
I can't even remember why Javid was ousted.
It's a pretty damming indictment of the Tory party that the only reason Sunak is the clear front-runner is because he's one of the few semi-competent cabinet members rather than just a sycophantic crony.
|>>|| No. 90444
Javid resigned, I recall, because he objected to the Johnson/Cummings plan for the Treasury to lose its independence from the Prime Minister's Office.
Which rather raises the question how Sunak is getting all the credit despite apparently being a puppet.
|>>|| No. 90445
>Which rather raises the question how Sunak is getting all the credit despite apparently being a puppet.
|>>|| No. 90446
Because a Tory chancellor spunking loads of money up the wall is revolutionary outside the box thinking. Whatever will he think of next, that cheeky young upstart? Universal basic income?
If you listen to the way the papers are talking about Sunak you'd think he was the Han fucking Solo of fiscal policy, for having the utter brass balls to do what someone like Gordon Brown might have done. Except with more corruption and cronyism.
|>>|| No. 90452
So presumably neither of you believe Javid's reasons for resigning were credible, if all of the things Sunak is doing that are making him the most popular Tory are entirely of his own volition?
|>>|| No. 90453
While both are obviously clever and capable people, I think Sunak comes across as a bit more down-to-earth; I'm quite sure it's all a clever political trick, Sunak went to much posher school/university than Javid, but he somehow seems a bit friendlier is how I describe it. That poshness means he probably gets on a bit better with Boris.
|>>|| No. 90455
I'm not saying he's ugly, just that his facial features are all weirdly exaggerated in a way you'd expect of a caricature.
|>>|| No. 90456
Just say he's got a great big laplander nose and have done with it. You know you want to.
|>>|| No. 91413
I suppose it's for the same reasons anyone listens to what Dominic Cummings has to say.
|>>|| No. 91422
Rishi Sunak is a tiny little man, like 5'5'' or something. I've seen him drive a cosy coupe down Whitehall I swear.
|>>|| No. 91426
The media have been reporting this wrongly due to a typo.
There wasn't a revolt by Carrie Symonds, Lee Cain was revolted by Carrie Symonds.
|>>|| No. 91428
Please not Mordaunt, I don't think I'd make it through four years of otherlad horny posting.
|>>|| No. 91430
He has a hint of Ed Miliband about him, which might be his undoing. Rishi is obviously massively popular given that we only ever see him when he's shaking the magic money tree, but his nerdiness might undermine his appeal over the course of a leadership campaign.
Timing is crucial - Rishi is a shoo-in if there's a rushed contest early next year, but he'll be a heck of a lot less popular in a couple of years when the bill for furlough comes due.
|>>|| No. 91433
So this was Labour's plan all along. They have simply developed a more convincing skin for their T-1000 and they've deployed it at the heart of the Conservative party.
|>>|| No. 91436
I've never noticed before how similar he is to Miliband. Yet one was a North London geeknerd and the other is the dishy PM-in-waiting.
I hate everything.
|>>|| No. 91452
I google for a saville terminator image, on the offchance that such a thing existed and found this.
|>>|| No. 91453
I find this kind of propaganda facinating, it pretends like it is satire poking fun of a politician and actually isn't.
I find it insidious.
Thick people probably share and it boosts their profile.
Got to play to the proles in the cheep seats who mistake it for punching up.
|>>|| No. 91454
> it pretends like it is satire poking fun of a politician and actually isn't.
U wot m8. It seems to be fully supportive of him.
|>>|| No. 91456
Not really. Arnie is the good guy and has come to kick some arse. So put Saville's face on makes him the good guy too. Although maybe the T2 audience doesn't know that Arnie is the good guy on first viewing, but everyone knows it now so that's probably moot.
|>>|| No. 91459
There does something off about his "I said I'd be leaving at the end of the year all along" message, like a pre-emptive excuse if it all goes tits up.
|>>|| No. 91462
>Laura Kuenssberg said his departure had been brought forward given the "upset in the team" in Downing Street, for which she said it had been a "difficult week".
If this was Corbyn's chief advisor quitting, I've no doubt the rhetoric would be about the team being "at each others throats", "sheer chaos", the team "disintegrating around the PM's ears", etc.
Sage for give it a rest already.
|>>|| No. 91463
Another casualty of the end of furlough right before Christmas. This would've never been allowed to happen under Corbyn.
I wonder what will change with Cummings out of the picture. I'd say the backbenches have pulled off a coup but Vote Leave are the backbenchers.
|>>|| No. 91469
They seemed to do fuck all when he was there apart from u-turn or leak ideas to the press to gauge the public response to them, so I imagine Boris will continue to do fuck all whilst he's gone.
|>>|| No. 91470
I reckon that was Cummings trying to buy himself time.
Honestly I'm not sure what's caused his departure. I know there's been loads of cock-ups, but the spotlight wasn't especially on him at the moment, so I'm assuming it's almost entirely court intrigue.
I don't deny it, I just don't want to hear about her tits the morning after she's sent specially equiped water cannon drone tanks to crush protesters in Isolation Camp 493 (formally Wigan).
|>>|| No. 91471
My understand is that Cummings was at least seen as someone keen on investing in the North. Maybe the dust-up was a revolt of the Conservative parties more libertarian leanings who're howling over the deficit.
|>>|| No. 91472
Apparently the power struggle against him was led by Carrie Symonds and Javid is in line to be Boris' #2.
|>>|| No. 91473
>Apparently the power struggle against him was led by Carrie Symonds
This seems out of the blue to me and as a result I'm skeptical. probably too skeptical.
|>>|| No. 91481
Cripes lads. Is there really not going to be another General Election until late 2024?
It seems almost certain that Boris will quit after the Public start to really feel the detrimental effects of Brexit, and given the precedent set by the current Cabinet and culture of the Conservative Party I cant see his replacement being any more competent or magnanimous.
The Conservative Party holds 56% of seats in the House of Commons, so bar unprecedented swathes of MPs in the House leave the Party we're stuck with the current lot at the time of arguably the greatest Crisis the UK has faced since WWII.
Has there been any comparable situation to this in the UK Historically that I can read up on to get a better handle on what's about to occur in the coming years?
|>>|| No. 91483
>Mr Cummings’ decision to walk out of Number 10 after what one official called “a day of tantrums” raised concerns that the adviser might turn against Mr Johnson and lift the lid on a chaotic administration. One government insider said: “I won’t be surprised if there’s an explosive stunt between now and Christmas.” A colleague of Mr Cummings said: “It’s not Dom’s style just to quietly drift away.”
>Mr Johnson held a 45-minute meeting with Mr Cummings and Mr Cain on Friday to discuss their “general behaviour” this week, according to individuals with knowledge of the conversation. In tense exchanges, Mr Johnson accused his aides of briefing against him and his partner Carrie Symonds and criticised them for destabilising the government in the midst of tense Brexit negotiations. Mr Johnson showed the aides text messages that had been forwarded to Ms Symonds, who opposed Mr Cain’s appointment as chief of staff, to show they had briefed against her. He told them to get out and never return.
|>>|| No. 91484
I wonder where he will go next.
>arguably the greatest Crisis the UK has faced since WWII
Come off it. Nobody will die because of Brexit and we don't even have the paralysis of the May parliament.
Why is Boris, as the 4kids say, such a simp? He seem quite incapable of separating his work and private life.
|>>|| No. 91485
>Nobody will die because of Brexit
The government's own planning documents say otherwise, and that was before COVID.
|>>|| No. 91486
What would you, then, say is the greatest crisis the UK has faced since the Second World War (titled correctly because I'm not a septic)?
|>>|| No. 91487
>Why is Boris, as the 4kids say, such a simp? He seem quite incapable of separating his work and private life.
I think what gets often overlooked is that Symonds isn't a stranger to politics. She's been involved in the Tory party for over 10 years, working as a press officer and a special adviser.
That and she's probably got a bit of leverage over him from his alleged affair with a violinist.
|>>|| No. 91489
And if you actually believe that then you're grasping at straws.
Politically it's Suez and if we're talking domestically then a tie between 1974 and 1976. Obviously the greatest crisis generally was Cuba but we had little say in the affair.
|>>|| No. 91490
>And if you actually believe that then you're grasping at straws
I look forward to your next paper, professor.
|>>|| No. 91491
I love these spads who get lucky in a big way and decide they've cracked it, they know how to do politics and no one can stop them, until they go and do something as stupid as briefing against their own sodding boss and his wife. The arrogance is truly a sight to behold. He may have played a sizable role in the Brexit referendum, but right-wing print media and government ineptitude were more of a factor. He may have helped the Tories win big in 2019, but Labour's campaign was about as agile and dynamic as Han Solo frozen in carbonite. I don't even particularly care that he's gone, but I do think it's funny, really rather funny.
>I wonder where he will go next.
The Spectator, he seems like exactly the kind of arsehole they love. He could have a bit too much self-respect to become an opinion monkey right away, so he might end up at a think tank for a while, wiling away his time pretending to think.
|>>|| No. 91493
>And if you actually believe that then you're grasping at straws.
The NHS is absolutely on the ragged edge in much of the country, particularly the North West. We've got huge staff shortages and constant issues with distribution of essential supplies. The big hope for ending the pandemic is the new vaccine; that vaccine is extremely temperature-sensitive and must be stored at colder temperatures than any existing drug or vaccine, so nobody is entirely sure how to manage the logistics. Our supply will come from Pfizer's advanced biologics facility in Belgium.
I don't see how the biggest disruption to our border logistics since the Second World War could possibly exacerbate that situation with fatal consequences. /s
|>>|| No. 91494
It'll be gammon that voted for Brexit that are more likely to do so it's alright.
|>>|| No. 91495
> that vaccine is extremely temperature-sensitive and must be stored at colder temperatures than any existing drug or vaccine, so nobody is entirely sure how to manage the logistics.
I've read that, and it's apparently going to be a major limiting factor in delivering the vaccine especially to poor third-world countries in warmer climates.
Probably good news though for companies that make industrial freezing appliances.
|>>|| No. 91496
>We've got huge staff shortages and constant issues with distribution of essential supplies
This is news?
>I don't see how the biggest disruption to our border logistics since the Second World War could possibly exacerbate that situation with fatal consequences. /s
And the fix to importing essential drugs in such an emergency would involve a hand-wave. You can even prop up the airline industry right now by booking flights to deliver the stuff. It'll be expensive if the border turns into a traffic jam but people won't die.
|>>|| No. 91497
The government have no interest in paying airlines to do medical imports - we have tried to tender that contract already. Hopefully that will change when they get more desperate, but then again, an RAF Globemaster has a fair bit more cargo space than I can allocate a 738.
|>>|| No. 91498
>This is news?
Well, you seemed unaware.
>And the fix to importing essential drugs in such an emergency would involve a hand-wave.
Oh, wow, you're actually a cabinet minister.
|>>|| No. 91508
>Meanwhile ultra-cold boxes are actually being put out following a mass logistics operation that began even before we got the news on the vaccine. This includes the mass organisation of cargo-plane flights.
I have absolute confidence in a government that gave a cargo ferry contract to a company with no ferries, no experience in operating ferries, no ability to procure ferries and a website that was plagiarised from a takeaway.
|>>|| No. 91509
The logistics will be a shitshow. Where I work, when we take delivery of control organisms and reagents requiring dry ice transport, it comes in this huge fuckoff insulated box, just for a tiny package no bigger than a packet of Haribo.
Transporting millions of vaccines this way is not just unfeasible, I'm not certain it's possible at all. The vaccine will have to be targeted very carefully at vulnerable groups until the supplies trickle through or another more robust one is certified.
|>>|| No. 91510
Boris isn't going anywhere, people are still in 2010-2019 unstable government mode of thinking and it's not adequete. He might get booted out 2022 or 2023 if Tory polling doesn't hold up (think Thatcher 1990) but other than that he's dandy. Sorry.
|>>|| No. 91512
>The logistics will be a shitshow
They really will - normal doctors surgeries or pharmacies are not going to be able to handle it well. We're going to need dedicated mobile units that do it - serious refrigerated trucks.
|>>|| No. 91514
>when we take delivery of control organisms and reagents requiring dry ice transport, it comes in this huge fuckoff insulated box, just for a tiny package no bigger than a packet of Haribo
Is that because putting multiple in one box would provide insufficient cooling, or because you can't cross contaminate? If the latter, can we not ship multiple vaccines in one of these big dry ice boxes? I accept it still might not be a huge number, but five or ten per box is still a lot more than one.
Obviously, "big fuck off box" doesn't give me much to work with in terms of estimates, but you underestimate just how much stuff you can fit in a heavy airlift cargo jet. It is expensive, but otherwise trivial to use Very Big Planes to fly these sorts of things over to us (after the politicians handwave the importing, obviously).
It'll still be a fucking nightmare, but the bottleneck would, in theory, be on the lorries on our home soil loading and driving the boxes to where they need to go.
And then the real problems start when you try and store these things for any length of time - how the fuck is that going to work? How many -70C warehouses are there in Britain?
|>>|| No. 91515
>Obviously, "big fuck off box" doesn't give me much to work with in terms of estimates, but you underestimate just how much stuff you can fit in a heavy airlift cargo jet. It is expensive, but otherwise trivial to use Very Big Planes to fly these sorts of things over to us (after the politicians handwave the importing, obviously).
There are hard limits on how much dry ice you can put on a plane before there's a risk of the flight crew suffocating. There are some theoretical workarounds, but they're all massively dicey because nobody has ever tried doing anything that daft. Realistically, the vaccine is either coming across by sea in reefers or in dribs and drabs on regular air freight.
Retailers, shipping and haulage companies have complained of "chaos" at Felixstowe Port in Suffolk, affecting goods in the run-up to Christmas.
One ship due to be unloaded at the port last week was redirected to Rotterdam because of "unacceptable" delays.
|>>|| No. 91518
Or the other option to importing the vaccine into this country would be someone based in this country to pay a fuckton of money for a license to produce the vaccine locally (although even if that was done it would probably take months to ramp up production)
|>>|| No. 91519
Jesus. It's not like the words 'Ireland' and 'starve' are politically charged, is it?
|>>|| No. 91520
This seems shortsighted at best, completely fucking stupid at worst - they clearly haven't done much research into the tens of millions Ireland have been pumping into Rosslare and Dublin ports and their airports - They are more than ready to bypass UK trade entirely if need be. I don't really understand how the report has missed this, we have absolutely nothing other than politics to threaten Ireland with.
|>>|| No. 91536
Pfizer have already made crates the size of a suitcase that work for up-to 10 days and contain 1-5k of vaccines a piece. The big problem will be making sure baggage handlers don't break everything with their ape-like fists.
I probably should've put my money into logistics when I had the chance - the 'just in time' model of supply is going to Moon over the coming months.
>How many -70C warehouses are there in Britain?
It's not just warehouses but university labs and even sperm banks. Then there's a powdered form in development for next year and all the other potential vaccines.
It should've been something emphasised from the start - Dublin needs to work with the UK on this. It's not just about the border but wider supply chains with GB that will fuck them harder owing to sheer scale. Although I'm not sure what kind of pull that has on the French fishing lobby.
They're pumping money precisely because they realise how fucked they are if it all goes wrong. It creates an argument of time not that Dublin is out of the woods, especially when Ireland lacks the land infrastructure on top of entry-point woes.
You might also want to consider that port expansion takes a long time. Just look at the UK's own saga on airport expansion.
|>>|| No. 91546
I dunno - if he gets it twice, the entire narrative around immunity (and therefore vaccines) completely changes - plus the obvious risk to his health.
|>>|| No. 91547
It wouldn't suprise me if that useless lunatic Anderson decided to act as some sort of COVID suicide bomber. I tell you, these neophyte Tory MPs are Republican Party level nutty; we're already living in their fun house, we just haven't realised the front door's locked yet.
|>>|| No. 91549
How ineffective of a politician do you have to be to find yourself facing a palace coup from Sunak? What next, is Mr Bean going to taking Carrie off him?
|>>|| No. 91551
>What next, is Mr Bean going to taking Carrie off him?
Rowan Atkinson has form for stealing much younger women so I wouldn't call it quite so absurd. I feel for James Acaster, imagine the nightmare of your girlfriend ringing up to say that she's dumped you for Mr Bean or the inevitable lead up of him elbowing his way in.
It's no wonder he stopped being funny.
|>>|| No. 91575
This might be the most awkward interview I've seen on the news in recent years m'lord
|>>|| No. 91578
If you think that is awkward you haven't seen enough Kay Burley interviews. She is such an insufferable cunt her wikipedia categories her controversies not by incidents but by year.
This one sticks out of note her telling a phone hacked MP he should have just changed his pin, the full interview is more spectacular but sky news has taken it down because copyright claims are a great way to cover up for a punchable fuckwit.
|>>|| No. 91579
> sky news has taken
Going violently off-topic - I'd've used have there. Are you some kind of foreigner?
|>>|| No. 91581
Sky News the faceless corporate entity, or Sky News the more informal group of people?
|>>|| No. 91621
>Boris Johnson has said privately that he will not promote Mr Holden because he fears his fiancee Miss Symonds would disapprove
Also some wanker's ladder climbing ambitions aren't worth the baggage he'd bring? The Mail's so deathly afraid of even the mildest suggestion that this government will be anything other than a pack of savage wreckers, that they'll stick up for someone nobody five feet beyond the steps of Parliament has ever heard of.
|>>|| No. 91623
Don't worry about Brexit lads, we'll be sipping Port on Mars in no time.
|>>|| No. 91624
Trump's doing so well in the US, obviously Johnson needs to keep following in his footsteps.
|>>|| No. 91625
- Lee Cain. Beat Symonds to be Boris Johnson's SpAD in 2016 while he was Foreign Secretary, which she held a grudge about. Ousted.
- Dominic Cummings. Responsible for Javid stepping down as Chancellor, whom Symonds is close with as she used to be his adviser. Ousted.
- Richard Holden. Symonds testified that he's a sex pest. Blocked from promotion.
It's not too farfetched to suggest there's a pattern here.
|>>|| No. 91627
Please don't misinterpret me as defending these Tory cretins, but I find fault with your reasoning. Cain pipped Symonds for a job in 2016, okay. However, you have no idea if she held a grudge about it and apparently she's friendly enough with Johnson to bear his child now, even though he presumably chose Cain over her. Sunak has been the only Conservative to look half-decent during 2020 and is already being talked about as the next leader despite being in cabinet for less than a year, which would seem to make appointing him a misstep if you don't want backbenchers trying to carry him into Number 10 like a bunch of more self-interested, latter-day, Praetorians. And what I said about not having an alledged sex pest in the upper echelons of the party still stands with regards to Holden. If I was in any position of power in a political party and a man with the words "alledged sex pest" on his CV wanted a job I wouldn't even look him in the eye before ordering him covered in pitch and lit on fire. It just isn't worth the hassle, even if the allegation comes from a psychic with a fraud conviction claiming Holden tried it on with Bugs Bunny in drag while holidaying on Atlantis.
I've no doubt there's plenty of intriguing and game-playing in and around Number 10, but The Mail are clearly trying to lay the ground work to ultimately paint Symonds as the power behind the throne, which is a archetype going back to the days of Livia Drusilla. It's a cheeky little warning shot, in the same manner they had a pop at Marcus Rashford for owning loads of houses. The Mail's saying "we're watching you", like a mobster telling you where your kids go to school. Frankly, I think the way everyone's behaving as though Johnson is just some kind of idiotic sponge without the ability to generate his own thoughts letting him of frather easily. Though I will admit it's possible COVID turned his brain to soup or that all he ever wanted was to sit in the big chair, never really thinking what he'd do once he got there. Let alone what he'd do if he got there and everything went to absolute shit just as soon as the seat was warm.
My takeaway got delivered in the middle of writing this so that's my excuse if it's totally incoherent.
|>>|| No. 91628
>and apparently she's friendly enough with Johnson to bear his child now, even though he presumably chose Cain over her
That's an odd point to make when the discussion is about her manipulating Boris constantly.
|>>|| No. 91629
That cow Patel has been found to have broken some rules. Just watch her not be held accountable for that either.
|>>|| No. 91630
I find it hard to believe she'd get knocked up just so she can spend five years whispering in the PM's ear to do... what exactly? I'm not saying she doesn't have influence, but the idea she's puppeteering this whole shower is a bit far fetched. People like to think MPs are more inert than they really are, but in reality they're quite capable of heaping misery upon us all by themselves.
Laying it on a bit thick there, Torylad.
|>>|| No. 91631
Apparently she's been given the option of either getting a written warning telling her not to be naughty again or she can wear some outfits that show off her chunky arse and that'll be the end of it.
|>>|| No. 91632
The point is it's hardly shocking that she'd be more attached to her partner than a bloke from work who got promoted when she didn't, even if the partner had a hand in that - you've been in relationships, right? They're hardly straightforward.
Moreover nobody is suggesting she has the codes to the nukes or is altering the cogs of whitehall in smoky rooms behind everyone's back - the accusation is that she has whinged at her boyfriend about people who she didn't like and it has been effective.
|>>|| No. 91633
As has been mentioned before, Carrie is not an ingenue - she worked in CCHQ for nine years and comes from a family of extremely well-connected journalists. She should not be underestimated.
|>>|| No. 91634
>she worked in CCHQ for nine years
I'd already forgotten about that, and she used to be a Twitter bugbear in my sphere of political consciousness.
|>>|| No. 91637
>I can't wait for those MPs who were queueing up to condemn John Bercow over allegations of bullying to stick to their principles and condemn Priti Patel for the same.
>The Left turned a blind eye to John Bercow’s allegations of bullying in the hope that he could overturn the plebs vote for Brexit, so please do feel free to take with a pinch of salt their protestations now over allegations of Priti Patel raising her voice at the Home Office.
|>>|| No. 91638
If I gave a crap I'd check Twitter myself, but I don't have an account because I don't care. Indeed, unless you have a larger point to make that you managed to forgot about whilst copy-pasting your greentext, I think yours might be the most contemptible post I've ever seen on .gs.
|>>|| No. 91639
I didn't forgot about it, I just assumed the useless stalemate that my point was to implicitly draw attention to, was obvious.
|>>|| No. 91644
Like you imagining how two factions of Twitter would post about something on here, but doing it in a really obnoxious way?
|>>|| No. 91646
Yes, that isn't what happened. The only part that did happen is you getting angry about it, which is entirely on you.
|>>|| No. 91648
Can we just agree that neither of you actually give a shite and you're both derailing the thread in the most embarrassing way possible? Don't either you have some working-from-home or shopping to do? Maybe a Football Manager save you could get back to? Just be normal, yeah.
|>>|| No. 91649
My Darlington save got corrupted and I didn't have a backup. I'd made it from the Conference North to League Two in three seasons. Proper boiled my piss that did.
|>>|| No. 91651
Yeah it's my own fault for being such a wally. I was quite enjoying that save as my scouts were actually coming up with decent recommendations; Ross County accepted a bid of £0 for Russell Dingwall and he bagged more than a goal a game in the Conference North and when I got promoted they picked out a regen playing for an amateur side in Ireland that had the potential to at least cut it to the Championship.
|>>|| No. 91652
I went and played Thief III for a bit, I still don't know what got him so riled up.
|>>|| No. 91654
As opposed to all the vastly constructive conversation that normally happens here? What are you on?
|>>|| No. 91655
>A row has broken out after Boris Johnson’s adviser on the ministerial code resigned in the wake of the prime minister standing by the home secretary, Priti Patel, despite a long-awaited official inquiry finding evidence that she bullied civil servants. Sir Alex Allan’s findings, based on the Cabinet Office investigation, concluded that Patel’s approach “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying” – noting instances of shouting and swearing – and decided that she had breached the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.
>But Johnson, who is the sole arbiter of the rules, rejected his adviser’s conclusion by deciding that the code had not been breached, prompting Allan’s resignation on Friday.
|>>|| No. 91658
Are we literally on a greasy slope towards Totalitarianism which has all the worst aspects of Hitlerism, or Stalinism with no redeeming qualities?
Are we to destined to be ruled by the failsons of hedge fund managers who make their name writing clickbait articles in online magazines mistake intelligence for knowing the names of rulers from the less admirable epochs of British history?
|>>|| No. 91659
At least we (as in the British public) voted them in. Yay democracy.
|>>|| No. 91660
>Are we literally on a greasy slope towards Totalitarianism
>Are we to destined to be ruled by the failsons of hedge fund managers
Always have been.
|>>|| No. 91661
I've said it several times now; we lost the war in 2016, everything else is just the consolidation of power. After the Soviets pulled off Operation Bagration the Second World War was completely and hopelessly lost for the Germans and their Axis allies. Of course the war didn't end in mid-'44, but it was a foregone conclusion: unconditional surrender. That's what we're waiting for now. We can fight to take climate change seriously, tackle rampant inequality and homelessness and put civil liberties before state power and private business interests, but I can't personally entertain the idea of long-term success on any front any longer. Corbyn was a complete fluke and not an especially effective one. Though it's worth noting he polled alright considering his "radical" policies and "complete dog shit" political abilities, it matters not anymore. Even now they have power, right-wing Labourites attempt to split the party, seeing no hypocrisy in their own drive for political purity, despite spending half-a-decade crying wolf over the very same thing on the left. Even if Starmer, or whoever, does win the next election we'll have meek and shortsighted government that papers over the cracks, the UK's power will be too diminished internationally to influence anything and the rot of neoliberalism will continue more or less unabated around the world. I just think we're living in one of those eras where things go to Hell in a handbasket. Not in an exciting or immediate way, just that we, meaning humanity, have hit a snag. We might garrot ourselves or by 2100 they'll look back and laugh, who can say?
|>>|| No. 91662
You have too much of a short term view. It would have appeared much the same to an old-guard leftie in 1992, with no apparent prospect of ever getting Labour back in. And then look what happened.
If you think we lost in 2016 then you haven't been paying attention for the past two decades.
|>>|| No. 91663
Keir Starmer is going to be the next Prime Minister and it's going to be perfectly satisfactory.
|>>|| No. 91664
It isn't that bad mate. Labour have always been shit, until a messiah comes along. Tories usually hold onto power for some two decades before Labour gets in. Blame the voters.
|>>|| No. 91665
>Blame the voters.
Britain is socially conservative. Labour used to understood this with messages like "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" which Blair actually first made as Shadow Home Secretary in 1992/93 while John Smith was leader. It doesn't mean you have to bring back hanging, you just need to be aware of what the main public concerns are and to appeal to them; the rise in crime in the early 1990s was a major issue and Labour at the time tapped into that.
You need a coherent message to get people on board. Labour seem to have forgotten this in the past 10 years ago and largely taken votes for granted instead.
|>>|| No. 91666
You're not entirely wrong, but this is something you've got to be very careful with. The most fascinating opinion poll data out there is on public attitudes towards the unemployed: All through Thatcherism and for most of the 90s the public took the view that most of the unemployed were probably legitimately out of work. Then Labour started saying that actually people on the dole are dolescum and Labour's going to take away their handouts because that's what the tabloids say so the public must believe it, and after Labour did that public opinion moved sharply against the unemployed in a way that not even the 2008 recession could cure. Any moral qualms aside, this strategy has backfired horribly since the Conservatives will always be seen as tougher on welfare than Labour, but now more of the public believes that the Conservatives are justified in that stance.
|>>|| No. 91667
>but now more of the public believes that the Conservatives are justified in that stance.
You need to update your source material, lad.
|>>|| No. 91668
A shame that all it took to get us to a position still far less sympathetic than that of 1996 was ~8 years of real terms benefit cuts, 3-and-a-bit years of the most left-wing Labour leader since the invention of the internet, the continued botching of the rollout of universal credit, the Conservatives pledging to end the welfare freeze, and a global pandemic.
|>>|| No. 91669
I reckon you're overthinking it.
If Labour are in power - People think benefits are too high.
If the Tories are in power - People think benefits are too low.
|>>|| No. 91670
That doesn't explain anything after 2010 though. The Tories have been in power since 2010, yet public opinion stubbornly remained on the side of "Benefits are too high" until this year. If it just followed who was in power, it would've flipped in 2011 or so.
|>>|| No. 91672
>The Tories have been in power since 2010, yet public opinion stubbornly remained on the side of "Benefits are too high" until this year. If it just followed who was in power, it would've flipped in 2011 or so.
I think it's because post-2010, the Conservatives have been especially relentless in telling the public that our benefits system doesn't encourage enough self reliance. It was certainly part of Cameron's platform, but BoJo's stance isn't fundamentally different.
|>>|| No. 91673
A fair point, but the trend starts in 2016. The first crossover point is around 1997 / 1998 which is on the money for Tony getting in.
Maybe it helps that a lot of the tabloids help do their job for them, but it just seems that the game is tilted in the favour of the right when it comes to massaging public opinion and controlling the narrative.
|>>|| No. 91675
I dunno, I'm inclined to still go by 2016 ladm9. Just looking at the grey line, if you take the average between 2008 and 2016 it's pretty stable at ~53% before taking a dive following that.
|>>|| No. 91677
>Maybe it helps that a lot of the tabloids help do their job for them, but it just seems that the game is tilted in the favour of the right when it comes to massaging public opinion and controlling the narrative.
This makes perfect sense when you consider that tabloids are owned by private corporations.
|>>|| No. 91678
How this man manages to evade the public's disdain is beyond me.
He essentially controls the mainstream media narrative in most of the Anglosphere, and he is a piece of work.
|>>|| No. 91679
If people didn't like what Murdoch had to say they wouldn't buy his newspapers or watch his TV channels.
|>>|| No. 91680
>If people didn't like what Murdoch had to say
But that's just it.
Murdoch isn't just simply some reactionary soap box preacher shoving his world view down your throat. None of the editors or owners of those more or less right-wing tabloids are. They're better than that.
On the contrary, they give the lower middle class public exactly what they want to read. A bit of oversimplified polemic here, the odd bit of rage bait, fake indignation and finger pointing there, and the unwashed masses will be none the wiser, and happy that somebody speaks their language.
People don't want to broaden their horizons. The lower down the social ladder you go and the lower your target audience's education, the more they will just want to read things that confirm the views they already have. That isn't to say that the same doesn't work with posh people and the preconceived views that they like seeing confirmed, but you could argue that the lower classes are much more unaware that that's how those rags get them.
|>>|| No. 91682
This falls for the free market rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Just because an entitt has held onto a monopoly for long enough and managed to embed itself institutionally in such a way that it's very hard to root out, does not mean that it must be what people want. A company being profitable can be a sign of any number of things beyond just consumer demand -- but you've entirely missed the history of capitalism from the early twentieth century onwards if you think that consumer demand can't be ruthlessly manipulated with generations of relentless marketing and very deliberately squashing competing companies (or any organizations with a different message).
|>>|| No. 91683
I don't see how what I said is irreconcilable with the tenets of ruthless manipulative capitalism.
But in the end, even the most pervasive capitalist marketing ruse will not make eskimoes buy fridges. There has to be a baseline inclination towards your product, however faint and as yet unarticulated. You can then capitalise on that and engender actual demand for your product. Which is where unbridled capitalism then comes into play. But even that will not work if you fail to give people what they want.
You're a bit too far on the dystopian side, lad. People aren't just innocent sheep who have evil capitalism foisted on them until they unquestioningly absorb it and become mental zombies incapable of independent thought. It's a lot more complex than that.
|>>|| No. 91684
>you could argue that the lower classes are much more unaware that that's how those rags get them.
I don't really agree, I think middle class and upper middle class people consume media in the same way but just with trendier aesthetics. Obviously the Guardian is more likely to write serious and verified articles than the Daily Express, but if you're talking about people who read these I don't see a great diversity of viewpoints among its readers.
Like, this article, just as an example and maybe a bit hyperbolic, but this woman's complaint is literally "I didn't like this place because people weren't enough like me and that's not acceptable to me", is the same mindset in a different section of society.
I suppose the difference if you're looking at it this way is that one part of society apparently consumes idiotic trash without question, the other consumes more credible and tasteful media (and trash) without question.
|>>|| No. 91685
I don't think it's fair to assume the baseline demand for The Sun is entirely in its right-wing politics. Of all the reactionary rags that compose the British Press, The Sun had the best ongoing justification for buying it for the longest time: softcore pornography. (Granted, sometimes daringly synthesized with right-wing politics.)
There's also always sports coverage, celebrity coverage, giveaways, etc.
At the same time: The Sun isn't god and political people really ought to stop thinking it is. Their front page in 2007's Scottish Elections compared voting SNP to putting the countries head in a noose, then in 2011 and 2015 they were forced to follow the tides of public opinion and back the SNP just to maintain the illusion of influence. Any subsequent Labour government (or ideally, any Government, but it's more tactically beneficial to Labour) should put less effort into courting the press (by all means, do so in opposition) and more effort into reforming it.
|>>|| No. 91686
Shocker. Not every single person in Oregon is a wide eyed, pot smoking hippie.
|>>|| No. 91687
>I don't think it's fair to assume the baseline demand for The Sun is entirely in its right-wing politics.
Your common garden Daz white van man doesn't buy any paper at all for the polticks. He buys it to find out who won the footy, what's on the telly, who's shagging who and all that stuff.
He gets a side helping of politics he thinks he's ignoring, but he eats it all up nevertheless, like a plateful of peas swimming in gravy on the side of a nice roast.
It's a self-sustaining cycle really. Same reason you like McDonalds and drink coke- It's not because it's the best, it's just completely ubiquitous and you're used to it.
|>>|| No. 91688
I reckon it's because issues of welfare are entirely too complicated to be based on the dole alone and that, obviously, public opinion is a strange beast. I'd hazard the flip in recent history is to do with stories over the system being cruel at the assessment stage which had previously not come about because everyone was still shaking off the memories of the recession.
>How this man manages to evade the public's disdain is beyond me.
Everybody hates Murdoch and it's not even exclusive to Britain. The reality is he's an old fart these days and his main interest has always been making money which is why his networks haven't tried to exercise control on the content of shows like Family Guy.*
The people who really don't get enough notoriety are his rivals such as the Barclay Brothers and Lebedev or if you want to go down a /boo/ rabbit hole the faceless groups who control the news. Plus the internal politics of the news room such the ongoing sectarian conflict between the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
*I say this because Seth MacFarlane was asked about this given his relationship to Fox.
I think the trend among the Middle Class is actually to read the Week these days. I'm not sure how editors pulling the 'best articles' of the week is any less questionable but then it's pretty much what using imageboards involve.
If they read print news at all that is. A couple years back I tried to read the Times but half the bloody thing was bullshit ad flyers/pull out sections.
>Any subsequent Labour government (or ideally, any Government, but it's more tactically beneficial to Labour) should put less effort into courting the press (by all means, do so in opposition) and more effort into reforming it.
Go to bed, Hugh Grant.
|>>|| No. 91689
You just ignored most of my post, there. Media is a great example of an industry that's so monopolised that you can print with an extremely heavy political bias and claim it must be what people want to read. A short glance at the history shows otherwise, though, with the Daily Herald being one of the papers with a very large readership that was essentially crushed by the power of advertising capital.
This isn't dystopian fiction or my jaded worldview, it actually happened, and it regularly happens across industries. There are a several major mechanisms by which you can build a successful business in such a way that treats consumer demand as a peripheral concern (at best).
|>>|| No. 91691
>There are a several major mechanisms by which you can build a successful business in such a way that treats consumer demand as a peripheral concern (at best).
HMG PLC being the most blatant example. Too big to fail, too slippery to jail.
|>>|| No. 91770
They're the Queen's Tax Havens, not yours mate, and I'm sure a way will be found.
|>>|| No. 91771
Huh, so this is what the Viz would look like if it was really, really shit.
|>>|| No. 91773
I used to buy it to run my Viz-fueled Vauxhall. But I had to trade it for something more practical.
|>>|| No. 91774
I've got a Volvo that runs on back issues of 2000 AD, if you're interested. Two careful owners, 80k miles, slight traces of fanny batter on the back seats, £895 OVNO, GSOH, no DSS.
|>>|| No. 91801
This place really is full of utter snobs especially given that least two of us three seem to be unemployed or earn under 50k a year.
I'm just going to sit here happily reading my Viz and Private Eye, drinking my non-craft "piss in a tin" beer and watching re-runs of HIGNFY and other BBC comedy dross on fucking iplayer. Someone has to let the side down, after all.
|>>|| No. 91803
I thought 40k was the cutoff for snobbery? So long as it's a figure greater than your age of course.
|>>|| No. 91804
I vaguely remember there being a study a few years back that stated that £50k family income was the middle class cut-off point. Fuck knows though, really.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]