However, I find it difficult to blame the 5th PM since 2010.
Sunak was a minister under Cameron and May, and Chancellor under Johnson. I don't recall any signs that he disagreed with government policy at the time.
For that matter, given that under him the Treasury refused to refund repairs and maintenance to schools that needed to replace crumbling concrete, it seems that his attitude has consistently been that it's better to pay for nine stitches later than to pay for one stitch in time.
... No, no, he's thinking about the British people.
Of course he is. But only the ones with bank accounts in seven figures.
He is thinking about them. He's thinking about how they might vote.
Thank you @Alan Cresswell for the Scheisskopf Strategy. I'd not heard of that before. The only problem in his case with announcing that he's going to drop a proposed meat tax that never existed is that when your party has been in power for so long, if the proposal ever had existed, it could only have come from them. But then, the one advantage of leading a party whose electoral base is Brexitist is that you never need to worry about your voters being able to think.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
That would be practical if the Prime Minister were getting us ready to go all electric. But that is just precisely what he is not doing.
The buck stops at the PM's door.
Are you onfident that the next PM( Not Conservative) will sort it out ?
That depends on how much of a mess they are left by the current one. I am a bit sceptical about Starmer, but he can’t be any worse. Even if he just gets a few things done he will be seen as good. We would at least have someone who seems to able to sort things out.
Better to have gambled and lost everything, ruined the UK's tattered financial reputation further, fucked up pension funds, put the kibosh on HS2 (at least for those dreadful north people) AND kept your loyal base, than be a good steward.
People like The Lettuce Truss never seem to understand that loyal bases have been known to turn and rend asunder those to whom they have, in the past, been loyal...
Excellent link. Thank you. The whole debacle is nearly beyond belief. Truss still appears to blame everone except herself.
It wasn't just Truss as a singular figure; the mini budget was the endpoint of thinking that started years ago. It was largely 'Britannia Unchained' made real; anyone could read it and work out the possible policy outcomes, but media analysis seldom went further than noting a book had been written and assuming it was a sign of intellectual seriousness.
Furthermore; it was the agenda of the various Tufton Street groups brought to life, yet people from the ASI/TPA/IEA/IPS continue to be represented on print and broadcast media as 'economic experts'.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
That would be practical if the Prime Minister were getting us ready to go all electric. But that is just precisely what he is not doing.
The buck stops at the PM's door.
Are you onfident that the next PM( Not Conservative) will sort it out ?
That depends on how much of a mess they are left by the current one. I am a bit sceptical about Starmer
Neither Starmer or Reeves really understand economics; and have tied themselves to Osbourne level austerity politics. They'll be forced to spend just to stop things from breaking but will get no credit for it because no one thanks you that their children *weren't* squished that day. They've pinned their stall on 'growth' and if /when it doesn't happen things they'll be in a very bad place and try and shore up support by going authoritarian.
There have been a number of articles in the Noos recently, urging the LibDems to start rolling out some radical policies.
This might not help them to win the next General Election outright, but I guess it could lead to influencing PM Starmer and his Cabinet to move in a more radical direction.
There have been a number of articles in the Noos recently, urging the LibDems to start rolling out some radical policies.
This might not help them to win the next General Election outright, but I guess it could lead to influencing PM Starmer and his Cabinet to move in a more radical direction.
This made Canadian news https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66906201 How is it playing out in UK? Are there many other countries where all police do not routinely carry weapons?
This made Canadian news https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66906201 How is it playing out in UK? Are there many other countries where all police do not routinely carry weapons?
See the WoOotD thread - we were taking about it yesterday.
I was reading about Braverman stating that refugees aren't really refugees, when it dawned on me that Sunak isn't looking too perky, in political terms, and in the Tory party, that means, knives out. So I am guessing that the honourable lady is gearing up for the big job, aren't we lucky?
I was reading about Braverman stating that refugees aren't really refugees, when it dawned on me that Sunak isn't looking too perky, in political terms, and in the Tory party, that means, knives out. So I am guessing that the honourable lady is gearing up for the big job, aren't we lucky?
I was reading about Braverman stating that refugees aren't really refugees, when it dawned on me that Sunak isn't looking too perky, in political terms, and in the Tory party, that means, knives out. So I am guessing that the honourable lady is gearing up for the big job, aren't we lucky?
Oh God no, please no.
But if the Tories elect her leader, won't that switch votes away?
And straight out of the Far Right playbook - "immigrants are dangerous criminals":
Braverman speaks of threats to public safety
The home secretary claims that “uncontrolled and illegal migration” also poses “obvious threats to public safety and national security.” She claims UK police chiefs have warned her of heightened levels of criminality linked to some small boat arrivals, “particularly in relation to drug crime, exploitation, and prostitution.”
And straight out of the Far Right playbook - "immigrants are dangerous criminals":
Braverman speaks of threats to public safety
The home secretary claims that “uncontrolled and illegal migration” also poses “obvious threats to public safety and national security.” She claims UK police chiefs have warned her of heightened levels of criminality linked to some small boat arrivals, “particularly in relation to drug crime, exploitation, and prostitution.”
(BBC News)
I think normally she would be sacked, but Sunak daren't, I think, as it would open up a chasm in the Tory party, and he's not sure he would be the winner.
I was reading about Braverman stating that refugees aren't really refugees, when it dawned on me that Sunak isn't looking too perky, in political terms, and in the Tory party, that means, knives out. So I am guessing that the honourable lady is gearing up for the big job, aren't we lucky?
Preparing for the post-election job vacancy as Leader of the Opposition.
I am surprised at the attacks on gays and women. She is going all out for the right wing vote at the Tory conference. I remember trans people saying, they're coming for us now, you will be next.
Also, she is saying “multiculturalism has failed”. Presumably she considers herself and her family an exception.
I guess it depends on how unbreakable you consider the link between race and culture to be. Presumably she considers herself and her family to be completely culturally British, with their skin colour being irrelevant to that categorisation.
Her parents came to Britain in the sixties, therefore if that’s the case, it would seem that they did not have the issues with social integration she is claiming are a problem for everyone else.
Also, she is saying “multiculturalism has failed”. Presumably she considers herself and her family an exception.
I guess it depends on how unbreakable you consider the link between race and culture to be. Presumably she considers herself and her family to be completely culturally British, with their skin colour being irrelevant to that categorisation.
Given that she identifies as Buddhist rather than Protestant she hasn't fully assimilated to "British culture". Nor, more pertinently, has she assimilated compassion, fair play, human rights or many other things traditionally claimed as "British values".
As far as I can see (from what's been reported on the news, I've not had time to find and read the whole speech) she'd failed to define "multiculturalism" nor state what success for multiculturalism would be. Though there is an impression that she's saying migrants don't adopt British cultural values - and, as pointed out by others her lack of compassion, fair play, human rights and other British values does indicate that on this she's described herself.
As far as I'm concerned, a failure to define what an exercise is supposed to achieve means that statements of failure are just meaningless, nothing more than grandstanding and dog whistles.
Also, she is saying “multiculturalism has failed”. Presumably she considers herself and her family an exception.
I guess it depends on how unbreakable you consider the link between race and culture to be. Presumably she considers herself and her family to be completely culturally British, with their skin colour being irrelevant to that categorisation.
Given that she identifies as Buddhist rather than Protestant she hasn't fully assimilated to "British culture". Nor, more pertinently, has she assimilated compassion, fair play, human rights or many other things traditionally claimed as "British values".
In her failure to assimilate those values, she shares the platform with the rest of the government gobshites.
I have no doubt that she is aiming for leadership of whatever is left of the tories after the next General Election.
This reminds me of the French politician Rachida Dati claiming that she doesn't consider herself to be an Arab.* It’s a kind of internalised racism.
How is it racism, internalised or otherwise? If I chose to permanently move to France then I would consider part of that decision to be that I would henceforth consider myself French rather than British, and seek to live by French cultural norms rather than British ones. And if I didn't want to live according to French cultural norms then I wouldn't move to France in the first place. None of that would mean I hate the British, all it would mean is that I wouldn't be one of them any more.
Her parents came to Britain in the sixties, therefore if that’s the case, it would seem that they did not have the issues with social integration she is claiming are a problem for everyone else.
There are two sides to cultural/social integration. The first is whether the existing residents are willing to accept new people into their society/culture - and if they're not, then that's wrong. But the second is whether the immigrants are willing to integrate with the society/culture into which they are moving - and I'd say that it's also wrong for them not to do so.
Her parents came to Britain in the sixties, therefore if that’s the case, it would seem that they did not have the issues with social integration she is claiming are a problem for everyone else.
There are two sides to cultural/social integration. The first is whether the existing residents are willing to accept new people into their society/culture - and if they're not, then that's wrong. But the second is whether the immigrants are willing to integrate with the society/culture into which they are moving - and I'd say that it's also wrong for them not to do so.
Problem us "integrating" is a movable feast. Culture covers so many things - are we to require immigrants to stop making the recipes they bring with them, change their religion, stop speaking their language, stop listening to the music of their places of origin?
She’s British. She has a British passport, British citizenship and she’s a member of the British government. You really cant get more British than that.
Her horrible ideas are due to her being conservative and right wing, and/or pandering to the conservative right wing.
Coming from an immigrant family she should know better, of course, that goes without saying.
Britain had a go at imposing British values on large parts of the world. There have been plenty of examples of attempts to suppress language, how people dress, forcing everyone to speak English, etc. In some places, that was even a very English attempt to impose Englishness (including in Scotland and Ireland). With what seems like a large majority in the Conservative Party and the general right wing media and populace thinking that Empire was a good thing is it any wonder that they still want to suppress other cultures and impose Englishness on everyone? It's just Empire thinking, a disaster for the world in previous centuries, with costs we're still carrying (including the abject poverty and disfunctional societies created by Britain and other colonial powers that people are trying to escape from, even today).
This reminds me of the French politician Rachida Dati claiming that she doesn't consider herself to be an Arab.* It’s a kind of internalised racism.
How is it racism, internalised or otherwise? If I chose to permanently move to France then I would consider part of that decision to be that I would henceforth consider myself French rather than British, and seek to live by French cultural norms rather than British ones. And if I didn't want to live according to French cultural norms then I wouldn't move to France in the first place. None of that would mean I hate the British, all it would mean is that I wouldn't be one of them any more.
Your analogy is flawed. What she is doing would be more like me moving to Kenya and saying I’m not white Caucasian*, I’m Kenyan.
(* For the avoidance of doubt, I am white Caucasian, and that does not preclude me from being Kenyan any more than being Arab precludes her from being French.)
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
Bonkers - and yet he insists that he is delivering only good things to *hard-working British families*. What about all the families out of work, those in poverty, or the homeless, or the destitute, or those waiting never-to-be-had hospital appointments, or those without families...? What is he delivering them ?
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
Bonkers - and yet he insists that he is delivering only good things to *hard-working British families*. What about all the families out of work, those in poverty, or the homeless, or the destitute, or those waiting never-to-be-had hospital appointments, or those without families...? What is he delivering them ?
They are not working hard enough to get themselves out the misery someone else has caused them. If we help them they will not help themselves, to get out of the mire other people put them in.
Comments
For that matter, given that under him the Treasury refused to refund repairs and maintenance to schools that needed to replace crumbling concrete, it seems that his attitude has consistently been that it's better to pay for nine stitches later than to pay for one stitch in time.
Thank you @Alan Cresswell for the Scheisskopf Strategy. I'd not heard of that before. The only problem in his case with announcing that he's going to drop a proposed meat tax that never existed is that when your party has been in power for so long, if the proposal ever had existed, it could only have come from them. But then, the one advantage of leading a party whose electoral base is Brexitist is that you never need to worry about your voters being able to think.
The buck stops at the PM's door.
Are you onfident that the next PM( Not Conservative) will sort it out ?
That depends on how much of a mess they are left by the current one. I am a bit sceptical about Starmer, but he can’t be any worse. Even if he just gets a few things done he will be seen as good. We would at least have someone who seems to able to sort things out.
No. But I'm confident that the present PM (or any likely Conservative successors) won't.
Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing. [/tobyziegler]
And Daddy strikes back.
Excellent link. Thank you. The whole debacle is nearly beyond belief. Truss still appears to blame everone except herself.
It wasn't just Truss as a singular figure; the mini budget was the endpoint of thinking that started years ago. It was largely 'Britannia Unchained' made real; anyone could read it and work out the possible policy outcomes, but media analysis seldom went further than noting a book had been written and assuming it was a sign of intellectual seriousness.
Furthermore; it was the agenda of the various Tufton Street groups brought to life, yet people from the ASI/TPA/IEA/IPS continue to be represented on print and broadcast media as 'economic experts'.
Our so-called economic experts have proved the truth of this assertion.
Neither Starmer or Reeves really understand economics; and have tied themselves to Osbourne level austerity politics. They'll be forced to spend just to stop things from breaking but will get no credit for it because no one thanks you that their children *weren't* squished that day. They've pinned their stall on 'growth' and if /when it doesn't happen things they'll be in a very bad place and try and shore up support by going authoritarian.
This might not help them to win the next General Election outright, but I guess it could lead to influencing PM Starmer and his Cabinet to move in a more radical direction.
In general, seems like an internationally popular strategy!
Sorry to disappoint ... 😞
See the WoOotD thread - we were taking about it yesterday.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/4485/waste-of-oxygen-of-the-day-award#latest
Oh God no, please no.
But if the Tories elect her leader, won't that switch votes away?
(BBC News)
I think normally she would be sacked, but Sunak daren't, I think, as it would open up a chasm in the Tory party, and he's not sure he would be the winner.
All the dog-whistles are there.
She doesn't care what damage she does as long as she elevates herself.
* well, maybe not quite, but you get my drift.
There are similarities - thinking suffering is good for (other) people, for example.
I guess it depends on how unbreakable you consider the link between race and culture to be. Presumably she considers herself and her family to be completely culturally British, with their skin colour being irrelevant to that categorisation.
*Although in other respects, Rachida Dati is nowhere near such a nasty piece of work
Given that she identifies as Buddhist rather than Protestant she hasn't fully assimilated to "British culture". Nor, more pertinently, has she assimilated compassion, fair play, human rights or many other things traditionally claimed as "British values".
As far as I'm concerned, a failure to define what an exercise is supposed to achieve means that statements of failure are just meaningless, nothing more than grandstanding and dog whistles.
In her failure to assimilate those values, she shares the platform with the rest of the government gobshites.
I have no doubt that she is aiming for leadership of whatever is left of the tories after the next General Election.
How is it racism, internalised or otherwise? If I chose to permanently move to France then I would consider part of that decision to be that I would henceforth consider myself French rather than British, and seek to live by French cultural norms rather than British ones. And if I didn't want to live according to French cultural norms then I wouldn't move to France in the first place. None of that would mean I hate the British, all it would mean is that I wouldn't be one of them any more.
There are two sides to cultural/social integration. The first is whether the existing residents are willing to accept new people into their society/culture - and if they're not, then that's wrong. But the second is whether the immigrants are willing to integrate with the society/culture into which they are moving - and I'd say that it's also wrong for them not to do so.
Problem us "integrating" is a movable feast. Culture covers so many things - are we to require immigrants to stop making the recipes they bring with them, change their religion, stop speaking their language, stop listening to the music of their places of origin?
Her horrible ideas are due to her being conservative and right wing, and/or pandering to the conservative right wing.
Coming from an immigrant family she should know better, of course, that goes without saying.
(* For the avoidance of doubt, I am white Caucasian, and that does not preclude me from being Kenyan any more than being Arab precludes her from being French.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/sep/29/rishi-sunak-anti-car-policies-tories-20mph-speed-zones-ulez-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
Bonkers - and yet he insists that he is delivering only good things to *hard-working British families*. What about all the families out of work, those in poverty, or the homeless, or the destitute, or those waiting never-to-be-had hospital appointments, or those without families...? What is he delivering them ?
They are not working hard enough to get themselves out the misery someone else has caused them. If we help them they will not help themselves, to get out of the mire other people put them in.