Can someone fill me in on this humourous(I assume) misspelling of Rishi's name? I think I've seen it a few times on the Ship, but I can't find any other references to it on-line. What's the joke?
Sorry - blame John Crace of the Guardian. I think it's a take on Sunak's leadership campaign slogan, which was (IIRC) *Ready for Rishi!*, but with the exclamation mark somewhat obscuring the final *i* by being rather large and prominent.
I will cease and desist from using it.
Thanks!
And no need to cease and desist from using it. I wasn't complaining at all, just curious.
Well, it's a bit obscure - another Guardian columnist has given Rishi the codename *Sunak the Sensible*, but somewhat ironically, I feel...
Well, I suppose if people don't know the reference and get confused, that can be an argument for discontinuing the joke. Your call, personally I was glad to learn something new about current UK politics.
I checked some photos of Sunak's campaign signs, and it looked as if, rather than the exclamation mark obscuring the "I", the exclamation mark and the "I" were the same thing, ie. they placed a dot under the "I".
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Meanwhile, James Cleverly, famously the most badly named person in politics, has defended Cruella's re-employment on the grounds that she has "recent experience in the Home Office".
Someone fired for flobbing in the burgers has recent experience of working for McDonalds but I wouldn't want them re-hired on that basis.
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Can someone fill me in on this humourous(I assume) misspelling of Rishi's name? I think I've seen it a few times on the Ship, but I can't find any other references to it on-line. What's the joke?
Sorry - blame John Crace of the Guardian. I think it's a take on Sunak's leadership campaign slogan, which was (IIRC) *Ready for Rishi!*, but with the exclamation mark somewhat obscuring the final *i* by being rather large and prominent.
I will cease and desist from using it.
Thanks!
And no need to cease and desist from using it. I wasn't complaining at all, just curious.
Well, it's a bit obscure - another Guardian columnist has given Rishi the codename *Sunak the Sensible*, but somewhat ironically, I feel...
Well, I suppose if people don't know the reference and get confused, that can be an argument for discontinuing the joke. Your call, personally I was glad to learn something new about current UK politics.
I checked some photos of Sunak's campaign signs, and it looked as if, rather than the exclamation mark obscuring the "I", the exclamation mark and the "I" were the same thing, ie. they placed a dot under the "I".
Yes, you're quite right about the ! - that's what John Crace picked up...my recollection was at fault.
I suspect this isn't the Cabinet that Mr Sunak would like, rather the one that he must have to try to keep the parliamentary party from descending into total war.
Statements from the Blond Braggart already make it clear he's going to be doing his level best to foment trouble on the back benches, ably assisted by the lunatic fringe (Fabricant, Chope, etc) under the leadership of Jacob Rees Mogg. To quote LBJ Better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in..
I suspect this isn't the Cabinet that Mr Sunak would like, rather the one that he must have to try to keep the parliamentary party from descending into total war.
I find statements like this rather jejune. Ultimately the country isn't affected by what might reside in the deepest part of his soul, it is however affected by the policies implemented under his watch.
This is the Tory party he chose to join, these are the people he is popular with, this is the party he chose to lead and the purpose of the system is what it does.
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Braverman's re-appointment is still causing unease:
Note that it's not just the Opposition who are concerned, but also no less a person than the cabinet secretary.
From that link:
Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for a Cabinet Office inquiry into national security concerns after Braverman was reinstated despite admitting leaking official documents, which government sources said was a “serious breach”.
The cabinet secretary, Simon Case, the UK’s most senior civil servant, was concerned over her swift return, insiders have said.
I wonder how long it'll be before Sunak sacks her?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
Evidence of people in paid employment, and particularly politicians in paid employment, often suggests otherwise.
I think I might walk with you part way though - I'd say that it comes close to a given with paid employment that people say that they are going to work hard - at least to their employers...
Re the Braverman appointment: I think he could be playing a long game. Not to appoint her would have been awkward with the people on the benches behind him. On the other hand to appoint and goad the Opposition into referring it to the Parliamentary Standards Committee and then let them wield the axe would be so much better, wouldn't it? I'd lay odds that RS has read The Prince.
Re the Braverman appointment: I think he could be playing a long game. Not to appoint her would have been awkward with the people on the benches behind him. On the other hand to appoint and goad the Opposition into referring it to the Parliamentary Standards Committee and then let them wield the axe would be so much better, wouldn't it? I'd lay odds that RS has read The Prince.
You may well be right. We shall see...
I think Sunak, whatever one may think of him, is nobody's fool.
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
No he can't. To quote James Carville in 1992, " It's the economy stupid."
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
No he can't. To quote James Carville in 1992, " It's the economy stupid."
I do agree with this, culture war stuff may generate a lot of headlines and tweets but it's not what people really care about - and especially not when we're getting a cold winter due to La Niña. Normal people don't actually care about the obsessions of the 'anti-woke' lot when they've had three PMs in a year with no general election and people struggling to afford fuel bills.
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
Probably not thinking about an election (certainly all his talk is on serving out the full length of the 5y from 2019). The culture wars provide lots of dead cats. Just look at us - we could be talking about economics, but we're talking about Braverman.
The talk is rarely of the economy and on the rare occasions that it is, the sheer ignorance of most of our MPs, and a fair number of our mandarins, is laughable and terrifying in equal measure.
How could any election involving today's tories be anything but dirty?
It is they who provide most of the filth, however.
I disagree here, Labour have been more than happy to use culture war issues to court voters.
Point taken. I read this evening in our local news outlet that the Labour MP for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) refuses to accept that Eddie Izzard is a woman.
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
As I said at the beginning, austerity 2.0 and culture war, and I didn't need to look into his soul or imagine he was playing five dimensional chess to work that one out.
How could any election involving today's tories be anything but dirty?
It is they who provide most of the filth, however.
I disagree here, Labour have been more than happy to use culture war issues to court voters.
Point taken. I read this evening in our local news outlet that the Labour MP for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) refuses to accept that Eddie Izzard is a woman.
How could any election involving today's tories be anything but dirty?
It is they who provide most of the filth, however.
I disagree here, Labour have been more than happy to use culture war issues to court voters.
Point taken. I read this evening in our local news outlet that the Labour MP for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) refuses to accept that Eddie Izzard is a woman.
Rosie Duffield has form for this sort of thing I'm afraid.
How could any election involving today's tories be anything but dirty?
It is they who provide most of the filth, however.
I disagree here, Labour have been more than happy to use culture war issues to court voters.
Point taken. I read this evening in our local news outlet that the Labour MP for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) refuses to accept that Eddie Izzard is a woman.
Rosie Duffield has form for this sort of thing I'm afraid.
I think it's wonderful that a privately educated billionaire can aspire so high.
First, like all children he didn't choose the school, his parents did. And they got the money to send him to Winchester through hard work.
Buying advantages for ones children over ordinary folk whose equally hard work has been less lucrative always sticks in my craw.
Second, he isn't a billionaire, his wife is the child if a billionaire. Most people now accept that women have their own property rights.
Of course, but he's hardly going to be living a life of economic hardship while his missus is loaded, is he?
It's all money, contacts, influence. Those who have none of those are squeezed out.
Salve Green-eyed monster
My son is paid more than the PM (he's an airline captain). He agrees with @KarlLB and @TheOrganist. No green-eyed monster there.
A fair society where the poorest have a decent income is a stable and settled society.
I blame Thatcher and her 'Market Forces'. There are two market forces - fear and greed. She started a slow, inexorable slide downhill for our society. She thought there was no such thing. Idiot.
It suggests that Sunak realises that he can't make people feel better off financially, so he can unleash the culture war dogs of war. Immigration, transgender, anything that shores up prejudice, and sows division. Can he win an election this way? Possibly.
No he can't. To quote James Carville in 1992, " It's the economy stupid."
Absolutely right mate. If the pound strengthens, borrowing is reduced, interest rates rise and the poor are promised to get poorer, 'difficult decisions' done with 'compassion' of course, all to make the cake bigger, appeasing fascists is worth the price.
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Sounds like he will be bursting into YMCA at any min
Anyone fancy a bet on how long Braverman can stay in post before she is suspended pending inquiries into what she did or didn't do on national security matters?
David Blunkett, former Home Secretary, has joined in the fray. He says that intelligence agencies may think twice about sharing information with Ms Braverman after her security breach. He thinks that UK security services may not wish to “provide briefings and the openness needed” while foreign agencies may worry that information would be “passed out of government”.
I don't know if he has solid grounds (eg a briefing from MI6) for thinking like this.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
Anyone fancy a bet on how long Braverman can stay in post before she is suspended pending inquiries into what she did or didn't do on national security matters?
Both Williamson and Patel had ministerial careers after breaches that should have seen them marked as unsuitable. So essentially this doesn't matter, until and unless the right wing press decide to make hay over it - similar to how Johnson's parties only became issues long after senior news staff and in some cases editors had attended them.
My guess is that the press don't want to focus on this. Johnstone became embarrassing, ditto Truss, surely they want Sunack to look clean, well, as clean as any Tory govt can. But then Murphy's law could strike.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
Comments
Well, I suppose if people don't know the reference and get confused, that can be an argument for discontinuing the joke. Your call, personally I was glad to learn something new about current UK politics.
I checked some photos of Sunak's campaign signs, and it looked as if, rather than the exclamation mark obscuring the "I", the exclamation mark and the "I" were the same thing, ie. they placed a dot under the "I".
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Someone fired for flobbing in the burgers has recent experience of working for McDonalds but I wouldn't want them re-hired on that basis.
Fuck's sake.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Yes, you're quite right about the ! - that's what John Crace picked up...my recollection was at fault.
Statements from the Blond Braggart already make it clear he's going to be doing his level best to foment trouble on the back benches, ably assisted by the lunatic fringe (Fabricant, Chope, etc) under the leadership of Jacob Rees Mogg. To quote LBJ Better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in..
I find statements like this rather jejune. Ultimately the country isn't affected by what might reside in the deepest part of his soul, it is however affected by the policies implemented under his watch.
This is the Tory party he chose to join, these are the people he is popular with, this is the party he chose to lead and the purpose of the system is what it does.
Braverman's re-appointment is still causing unease:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/26/suella-braverman-return-after-security-breach-defended-by-james-cleverly
Note that it's not just the Opposition who are concerned, but also no less a person than the cabinet secretary.
From that link:
Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for a Cabinet Office inquiry into national security concerns after Braverman was reinstated despite admitting leaking official documents, which government sources said was a “serious breach”.
The cabinet secretary, Simon Case, the UK’s most senior civil servant, was concerned over her swift return, insiders have said.
I wonder how long it'll be before Sunak sacks her?
Evidence of people in paid employment, and particularly politicians in paid employment, often suggests otherwise.
I think I might walk with you part way though - I'd say that it comes close to a given with paid employment that people say that they are going to work hard - at least to their employers...
You may well be right. We shall see...
I think Sunak, whatever one may think of him, is nobody's fool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqWeSZsVjKE
WARNING - contains IRONY and SATIRE
Or alternatively it gives an indication of what he intends to do that is rather more accurate than the kinds of analysis done by lobby journalists.
It is they who provide most of the filth, however.
No he can't. To quote James Carville in 1992, " It's the economy stupid."
I disagree here, Labour have been more than happy to use culture war issues to court voters.
I do agree with this, culture war stuff may generate a lot of headlines and tweets but it's not what people really care about - and especially not when we're getting a cold winter due to La Niña. Normal people don't actually care about the obsessions of the 'anti-woke' lot when they've had three PMs in a year with no general election and people struggling to afford fuel bills.
Point taken. I read this evening in our local news outlet that the Labour MP for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) refuses to accept that Eddie Izzard is a woman.
As I said at the beginning, austerity 2.0 and culture war, and I didn't need to look into his soul or imagine he was playing five dimensional chess to work that one out.
Do you think that Izzard is a woman ?
Exactly.
Rosie Duffield has form for this sort of thing I'm afraid.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosie-duffield-labour-transgender-debate-b1923307.html
Yes, I thought I'd heard of her before, in this context. She proves @Pomona's point that the tories are not alone...
When we stop voting for it for the poor.
My son is paid more than the PM (he's an airline captain). He agrees with @KarlLB and @TheOrganist. No green-eyed monster there.
A fair society where the poorest have a decent income is a stable and settled society.
I blame Thatcher and her 'Market Forces'. There are two market forces - fear and greed. She started a slow, inexorable slide downhill for our society. She thought there was no such thing. Idiot.
Absolutely right mate. If the pound strengthens, borrowing is reduced, interest rates rise and the poor are promised to get poorer, 'difficult decisions' done with 'compassion' of course, all to make the cake bigger, appeasing fascists is worth the price.
Sounds like he will be bursting into YMCA at any min
Sums it up rather well...
I don't know if he has solid grounds (eg a briefing from MI6) for thinking like this.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
I don't want to think about the possible explanations that don't involve confidential information...
This.
Both Williamson and Patel had ministerial careers after breaches that should have seen them marked as unsuitable. So essentially this doesn't matter, until and unless the right wing press decide to make hay over it - similar to how Johnson's parties only became issues long after senior news staff and in some cases editors had attended them.
Johnson started to look independent and the press focused for the same reason dictators always arrange counter demonstrations.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.