NPR

People leave their constituencies! They see what’s happened in other parts of the country and don’t want it for their area! Areas with diversity tend to become more pro diversity as non-white people are allowed to vote! Is this really not obvious?

tabascoboy wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:18 pm

SaintK wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 3:19 pm Four of nastiest pieces of work you could wish for. I'm sure the voters knew what they were doing!!!

Don't know who the one furthest to the right is, but he looks like a flasher

I'm sure they'll make a right thorough nuisance of themselves at PMQs

I'm guessing that must be the shitweasel who won Great Yarmouth. Having been there (and very briefly just up the coast to Hemsby, me and the mrs drove down to the main holiday area, turned round and drove straight back out again), it doesn't surprise me that it went Reform.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:57 pm People leave their constituencies! They see what’s happened in other parts of the country and don’t want it for their area! Areas with diversity tend to become more pro diversity as non-white people are allowed to vote! Is this really not obvious?

There has to be immigrants in those areas for them to be using NHS services, when you see vox pops from those places they blame immigrants which don't exist in those places for stuff like that. They don't need to worry about immigrants if they remain where there are economically.

It's very obvious why shit holes are voting for this stuff, a scapegoat has been found and they keep voting against it (look at the Leave percentages in those four places), just like most of them voted Tory too. The Tories have nuked those places with austerity then Brexit inflation.

Those places aren't fucked because there's some more Indians in London or whatever. A good deal of why they're fucked is because of what they're voting for.

_Os_ wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:06 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:57 pm People leave their constituencies! They see what’s happened in other parts of the country and don’t want it for their area! Areas with diversity tend to become more pro diversity as non-white people are allowed to vote! Is this really not obvious?

There has to be immigrants in those areas for them to be using NHS services, when you see vox pops from those places they blame immigrants which don't exist in those places for stuff like that. They don't need to worry about immigrants if they remain where there are economically.

It's very obvious why shit holes are voting for this stuff, a scapegoat has been found and they keep voting against it (look at the Leave percentages in those four places), just like most of them voted Tory too. The Tories have nuked those places with austerity then Brexit inflation.

Those places aren't fucked because there's some more Indians in London or whatever. A good deal of why they're fucked is because of what they're voting for.

As I said, people can see what has happened elsewhere and don’t want it for their area. Their motivations are straightforward, you don’t have to agree with them. And what’s above is a radically different argument to what you were running with 5 minutes ago

Starmer. Hot wife and Angela Rayner as Deputy PM. Respect.

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:13 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:08 pm Starmer isnt going to announce a senior cabinet without a Scottish Minister is he?

Why would he appoint anyone from a branch office?

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Is Secretary of State for Scotland not a senior cabinet position.
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/18 ... 5895121231

Jockaline wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:23 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:13 pm

Why would he appoint anyone from a branch office?

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Is Secretary of State for Scotland not a senior cabinet position.
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/18 ... 5895121231

Not really. Doesn’t have responsibility for anything at all anymore.

A lot of comment on voter turn out in the media, I haven't really seen much on people being turned away due to incorrect or no photo ID bar anecdotes on social media. Maybe it's a statistically insignificant number, but I do wonder...

tabascoboy wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:45 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:08 pm Starmer isnt going to announce a senior cabinet without a Scottish Minister is he?

Ian Murray

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe ... 's%20party.

That’s why I said senior

Jockaline wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:23 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:13 pm

Why would he appoint anyone from a branch office?

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Is Secretary of State for Scotland not a senior cabinet position.
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/18 ... 5895121231

Hopefully it will get back to being one, but was continually downgraded by the last government

Insane_Homer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:49 pm IMG_20240705_184835_521.jpg

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:52 pm

Jockaline wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:23 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Is Secretary of State for Scotland not a senior cabinet position.
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/18 ... 5895121231

Hopefully it will get back to being one, but was continually downgraded by the last government

But there’s no power or authority to do anything. I don’t see how it can be anything significant. It wasn’t just the last government, it’s been a relaitively minor post since devolution.

First education secretary who was on free school meals.

Chancellor from a comprehensive school, and first woman to do the job.

An energy secretary who is focussed on fighting climate change.

A very different government.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:12 pm

_Os_ wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:06 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:57 pm People leave their constituencies! They see what’s happened in other parts of the country and don’t want it for their area! Areas with diversity tend to become more pro diversity as non-white people are allowed to vote! Is this really not obvious?

There has to be immigrants in those areas for them to be using NHS services, when you see vox pops from those places they blame immigrants which don't exist in those places for stuff like that. They don't need to worry about immigrants if they remain where there are economically.

It's very obvious why shit holes are voting for this stuff, a scapegoat has been found and they keep voting against it (look at the Leave percentages in those four places), just like most of them voted Tory too. The Tories have nuked those places with austerity then Brexit inflation.

Those places aren't fucked because there's some more Indians in London or whatever. A good deal of why they're fucked is because of what they're voting for.

As I said, people can see what has happened elsewhere and don’t want it for their area. Their motivations are straightforward, you don’t have to agree with them. And what’s above is a radically different argument to what you were running with 5 minutes ago

?

What have I changed in what I'm saying? Reform is doing best in deprived homogenous white English areas (those four constituencies make that neatly obvious, I'm sure there's other which would require more drilling down to show that, it's not a wide voting coalition). The argument they're making is scapegoating immigrants for the problems those people are facing. It's not just stop the boats, it is "the immigrants have stolen everything from you". Those deprived areas are voting for that message whichever party is saying it and however it's deployed, and they get poorer the more those they're voting for have power.

You were bemoaning ethnic politics earlier in the thread, but this is what this is. Very common tactic in Southern Africa to blame whites for problems, and behind that load up a shitload of awful policies making the poor people voting for it worse off. No different.

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:50 pm A lot of comment on voter turn out in the media, I haven't really seen much on people being turned away due to incorrect or no photo ID bar anecdotes on social media. Maybe it's a statistically insignificant number, but I do wonder...

I think the tribal Tories that can't vote for anyone else stayed home as much as anything.

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:50 pm A lot of comment on voter turn out in the media, I haven't really seen much on people being turned away due to incorrect or no photo ID bar anecdotes on social media. Maybe it's a statistically insignificant number, but I do wonder...

Turnout was always going to be low as opinion polls had shown the result was a foregone conclusion for months. A lot of Tories won't have bothered voting either because they were disillusioned with their party or couldn't see the point as they were going to lose anyway, and there will have been nominal Labour supporters who won't have voted because they thought their votes weren't needed. If it had been a tighter contest, turnout would likely have been a bit higher.

The Tories 'supermajority' lines in the final week could also be seen as an attempt to deliberately keep the turnout low (and Starmer specifically called this out as a voter-suppression tactic). Added to which is the general discontent with politicians and politics and the uninspiring campaigns run by both main parties.

It'll also be interesting to see how many votes were lost because of the postal votes shambles.

Is it just me or does anybody else think that Sunak's wife looks like a haunted doll in the background, every time Sunak blinks she inches just that bit closer...

Lobby wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:05 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:50 pm A lot of comment on voter turn out in the media, I haven't really seen much on people being turned away due to incorrect or no photo ID bar anecdotes on social media. Maybe it's a statistically insignificant number, but I do wonder...

Turnout was always going to be low as opinion polls had shown the result was a foregone conclusion for months. A lot of Tories won't have bothered voting either because they were disillusioned with their party or couldn't see the point as they were going to lose anyway, and there will have been nominal Labour supporters who won't have voted because they thought their votes weren't needed. If it had been a tighter contest, turnout would likely have been a bit higher.

The Tories 'supermajority' lines in the final week could also be seen as an attempt to deliberately keep the turnout low (and Starmer specifically called this out as a voter-suppression tactic). Added to which is the general discontent with politicians and politics and the uninspiring campaigns run by both main parties.

It'll also be interesting to see how many votes were lost because of the postal votes shambles.

Oh sure and turnouts have been pretty crap for a while anyway, so it's likely not a huge number who've not been able to vote having tried to. Just curious to see if we get any numbers.

Surprised how little media attention there has been around the issues with postal votes.
With several seats very close, it may well have made a difference.

Hopefully Starmer can restore some trust and respectability in politics.
Heard a few Reform voters now say that all the main candidates are awful, so they might as well choose an awful candidate who promises big stuff that they think is impacting their lives.
Which is understandable, you'd just wish they'd engage more with the wider context and politics to check these promises (I appreciate that sounds patronising, but is not meant that way)

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:40 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:13 pm

Why would he appoint anyone from a branch office?

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Mandelson was asked about this last night. He suggested that essentially Starmer has had a very close knit top team for some time and intends to translate that directly into government. Clearly two vacancies opened up last night but the principle was sound.

On the point about young men and Reform, young men live in an increasingly female coded society in ways that I don’t think are immediately obvious to people who are older. They also tend to react against whatever the establishment view they are presented with, as just about every generation has. To them, the establishment presentation from teachers/media (they don’t read the Sun, come in) has always been really quite left/liberal, in a way that wasn’t true even for someone like myself that’s a decade older or so (we got similar talks at school but it was always clear that the older teachers didn’t have their hearts in it). It isn’t/shouldn’t be a shock to see them react against it

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

An Attorney General who is a recognised lawyer with a heavyweight reputation and decades of experience in chambers, rather than a lightweight who’ll tell the PM what he wants to hear.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:56 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:52 pm

Jockaline wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:23 pm

Is Secretary of State for Scotland not a senior cabinet position.
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/18 ... 5895121231

Hopefully it will get back to being one, but was continually downgraded by the last government

But there’s no power or authority to do anything. I don’t see how it can be anything significant. It wasn’t just the last government, it’s been a relaitively minor post since devolution.

I guess your right to be honest, but seeing them occasionally in Scotland and maybe having an official office in Edinburgh like they did previously would be a start

salanya wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:40 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:29 pm

Now now.

It would be an early own goal I feel.

Mandelson was asked about this last night. He suggested that essentially Starmer has had a very close knit top team for some time and intends to translate that directly into government. Clearly two vacancies opened up last night but the principle was sound.

On the point about young men and Reform, young men live in an increasingly female coded society in ways that I don’t think are immediately obvious to people who are older. They also tend to react against whatever the establishment view they are presented with, as just about every generation has. To them, the establishment presentation from teachers/media (they don’t read the Sun, come in) has always been really quite left/liberal, in a way that wasn’t true even for someone like myself that’s a decade older or so (we got similar talks at school but it was always clear that the older teachers didn’t have their hearts in it). It isn’t/shouldn’t be a shock to see them react against it

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

It's funny, I don't feel anything like the elation and the sense of hope that I felt in '97.

Just "not corrupt" would be a massive improvement on the last shower of shit, but Labour have a tough road ahead, they always have to clean up the mess left behind after the Tories, but it's never been as scorched an earth as now.

Scorched, salted and poisoned.

Good luck Starmer, you're going to need it

James Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation. That’s left field, but given all of the things Timpsons do as a company around employment of ex prisoners and their general social conscience to their staff and the wider community, that’s a really interesting appointment.

And Sir Patrick Vallance as Minister of state in Science, Innovation and Technology. This looks like serious government, valuing expertise in a field over political ambition.

_Os_ wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:01 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:12 pm

_Os_ wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:06 pm
There has to be immigrants in those areas for them to be using NHS services, when you see vox pops from those places they blame immigrants which don't exist in those places for stuff like that. They don't need to worry about immigrants if they remain where there are economically.

It's very obvious why shit holes are voting for this stuff, a scapegoat has been found and they keep voting against it (look at the Leave percentages in those four places), just like most of them voted Tory too. The Tories have nuked those places with austerity then Brexit inflation.

Those places aren't fucked because there's some more Indians in London or whatever. A good deal of why they're fucked is because of what they're voting for.

As I said, people can see what has happened elsewhere and don’t want it for their area. Their motivations are straightforward, you don’t have to agree with them. And what’s above is a radically different argument to what you were running with 5 minutes ago

?

What have I changed in what I'm saying? Reform is doing best in deprived homogenous white English areas (those four constituencies make that neatly obvious, I'm sure there's other which would require more drilling down to show that, it's not a wide voting coalition). The argument they're making is scapegoating immigrants for the problems those people are facing. It's not just stop the boats, it is "the immigrants have stolen everything from you". Those deprived areas are voting for that message whichever party is saying it and however it's deployed, and they get poorer the more those they're voting for have power.

You were bemoaning ethnic politics earlier in the thread, but this is what this is. Very common tactic in Southern Africa to blame whites for problems, and behind that load up a shitload of awful policies making the poor people voting for it worse off. No different.

Still trying to work out how you think I changed my argument? The thing about nationalism is it preaches to its own people regardless of any actual facts, immigrants existing somewhere else in the country or not doesn't matter. Politicians in Zimbabwe still blame whites even though there are now very few there, it even pops up in Zambia. Same happened in Poland after the Holocaust, the survivors were forced out by the Communists under accusations of Zionism leaving Poland without Jews, but Jews were still blamed for everything well into the 1980s when there were none.

Not convinced the actual immigration situation matters when places that are 95%+ white English are voting Reform. The reality of immigration could radically change and they would still gobble up blaming immigrants for their own (often self inflicted) problems. Vox pops of these people expressing themselves sometimes makes it clear that for them by "immigrants" they also mean British people who aren't white, meaning their problem with "immigrants" is unsolvable.

Back to the original point about Scotland. Celtic nationalisms aren't like English nationalism (or British nationalism, or any other term for it) because their bogeyman is the English. Explicitly or not they'll always blame the English even when they aren't a factor. Seems to me the SNP is a broadly similar but weaker version of the Irish nationalist parties like SF, wherever it started out it's now on the left and anti-Union. Anti-immigrant stuff would be more likely in an independent Scotland or a Scotland that was more Unionist, the English would have to be removed as a factor (eg given the current level of support for independence if Scotland had more immigration and that was seen negatively, that wouldn't automatically boost Reform, but there would automatically be a market for any politician who blamed that on the Union).

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:37 pm

salanya wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:40 pm


Mandelson was asked about this last night. He suggested that essentially Starmer has had a very close knit top team for some time and intends to translate that directly into government. Clearly two vacancies opened up last night but the principle was sound.

On the point about young men and Reform, young men live in an increasingly female coded society in ways that I don’t think are immediately obvious to people who are older. They also tend to react against whatever the establishment view they are presented with, as just about every generation has. To them, the establishment presentation from teachers/media (they don’t read the Sun, come in) has always been really quite left/liberal, in a way that wasn’t true even for someone like myself that’s a decade older or so (we got similar talks at school but it was always clear that the older teachers didn’t have their hearts in it). It isn’t/shouldn’t be a shock to see them react against it

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

I'm with Tichtheid on this.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:48 pm James Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation. That’s left field, but given all of the things Timpsons do as a company around employment of ex prisoners and their general social conscience to their staff and the wider community, that’s a really interesting appointment.

And Sir Patrick Vallance as Minister of state in Science, Innovation and Technology. This looks like serious government, valuing expertise in a field over political ambition.

Both good appointments, Timpson is good man as is Vallance

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:39 pmJust "not corrupt" would be a massive improvement on the last shower of shit, but Labour have a tough road ahead, they always have to clean up the mess left behind after the Tories, but it's never been as scorched an earth as now.

Scorched, salted and poisoned.

Good luck Starmer, you're going to need it

Yep

epwc wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:01 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:48 pm James Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation. That’s left field, but given all of the things Timpsons do as a company around employment of ex prisoners and their general social conscience to their staff and the wider community, that’s a really interesting appointment.

And Sir Patrick Vallance as Minister of state in Science, Innovation and Technology. This looks like serious government, valuing expertise in a field over political ambition.

Both good appointments, Timpson is good man as is Vallance

Almost looks like there’s grown ups in charge.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:37 pm

salanya wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 6:34 pm

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

So someone who genuinely leveled themselves up through government schemes etc, and lived in social housing, in charge of levelling up and social housing.

Someone who may be genuinely interested in rehabilitation of offenders, rather than just trying to look tougher and tougher on crime, in charge of prisons.

A scientist in charge of science?

A heavyweight KC as attorney general.

That'll all never work...

It looks like a grown up has made these selections without any sort of consideration of how he's going to help his mates make money! That can't be right surely.

Be interesting to see how Sue Gray is deployed; she's a formidable individual, & there's a lot of work to be done to clean up a Civil Service that has obviously suffered under the Tories, & crucial Depts like the HO need major reforming, & some of the highest level officials who forgot that they're supposed to be INDEPENDENT, need to be shown the door.

I also hope on Monday we get the Russian Interference report published, the Covid Inquiry gets given powers to access all, & I mean all personal devices, & they get the cooperation of GCHQ to recover any deleted messages. Then they can take a 10 minute break, & announce the launch of a Public Inquiry into the whole VIP Lane, & PPE Procurement process !

In short, FUCK THE TORIES !!, & nail the bumblecunts flabby carcass to the wall, if they can find nails long enough to support the weight.

Raggs wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:20 pm So someone who genuinely leveled themselves up through government schemes etc, and lived in social housing, in charge of levelling up and social housing.

Someone who may be genuinely interested in rehabilitation of offenders, rather than just trying to look tougher and tougher on crime, in charge of prisons.

A scientist in charge of science?

A heavyweight KC as attorney general.

That'll all never work...

It looks like a grown up has made these selections without any sort of consideration of how he's going to help his mates make money! That can't be right surely.

Pffft, experts - who needs experts?

Raggs wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:20 pm So someone who genuinely leveled themselves up through government schemes etc, and lived in social housing, in charge of levelling up and social housing.

Someone who may be genuinely interested in rehabilitation of offenders, rather than just trying to look tougher and tougher on crime, in charge of prisons.

A scientist in charge of science?

A heavyweight KC as attorney general.

That'll all never work...

It looks like a grown up has made these selections without any sort of consideration of how he's going to help his mates make money! That can't be right surely.

Don’t forget someone who had free school meals in charge of education.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:37 pm

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

You have to look at all the data

Someone might look at Taylor Swift and Beyonce and surmise that woman musicians are doing very well. Just as an example, I've been following a kind of "Me too" awakening on Facebook of female classical musicians who have suffered years, decades of sexual assault and discrimination from when they are in their teens at the hands of men in their 30s, 40s, 50s, which is very much the norm, to get a regular gig in orchestras across the US.
This world is very white, too

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:28 pm

Raggs wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:20 pm So someone who genuinely leveled themselves up through government schemes etc, and lived in social housing, in charge of levelling up and social housing.

Someone who may be genuinely interested in rehabilitation of offenders, rather than just trying to look tougher and tougher on crime, in charge of prisons.

A scientist in charge of science?

A heavyweight KC as attorney general.

That'll all never work...

It looks like a grown up has made these selections without any sort of consideration of how he's going to help his mates make money! That can't be right surely.

Don’t forget someone who had free school meals in charge of education.

Madness! It's like they want to improve things for the plebs!

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 8:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:54 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:37 pm

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Salanya has asked a good question which I will attempt to answer properly on another day.

On your point. Taking my profession, as a high level view it is basically 50/50 male-female, with men earning significantly more and occupying management positions. At my junior level? It is 80/20 female-male. If you take the high level stat the profession is a disgrace, if you live it on the ground the reality is very very different. Young men who like reform/Tate live on the ground. Reality is very different to what it was a few decades ago.

Disclaimer - I am very very much OK with my profession’s gender balance. It’s a thing rather than a bad thing if that makes any sense.

Was just about to make that point. Among the younger adults we're really starting to see the impact of a relatively long term trend in growing attainment differentials between male and female pupils, which then manifests in a widening gender imbalance for university attendance. Graduates on average do still outearn non-graduates, so we're getting more and more young men who feel like they're at the bottom of the heap and that no one's interested in helping them not be.