Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

16162646667135

Comments

  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    As pointed out, there's nothing wrong with fair and reasonable discussion, but this is not the place to have it. Purgatory is.

    Moreover, failing to respect the Crew acting in that capacity is a Commandment 6 breach.

    Commandment 6 also states that any posts disputing a Crew ruling belong in the Styx.

    You indicated earlier that you were familiar with the 10Cs. Now's the time to demonstrate that, and by now I mean now now.

    /admin mode.

    Hi.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.

    No personal attacks from me old bean. Not questioning your role.

    6. Accountability – by posting in Hell, you agree that you are accountable for what you write. There is no comeback from here – no whining, no complaining, no appeals to lower authority. You've reached the end of the road.

    No whining or complaining from me, all is good ;-)

  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Sorry, poorly worded. I voted Labour 2010, was mostly indifferent during the coalition years and abandoned Labour when Corbyn became leader.
    I don't think Boris is "hard right" by any stretch of the imagination, I consider him a one nation conservative. I think if there was a hard right conservative govt rather than a pragmatic mix the opposition would be hard left which would polarise the nation.
    For me centralist is exemplified by individuals like Dan Jarvis and on domestic policy people like Blair.

    I don't think Johnson is hard right either. I think he's a Groucho Marxist. The people he has brought into government are hard right, unless you think Britannia Unchained describes a centrist (not centralist, that implies centralising) vision. Blair's domestic policy covers quite a wide range. There's not necessarily a clear link between supporting the creation of SureStart, devolving power to Scotland and Wales, centralising power within England over education, shifting the burden of funding Higher Education to students, shifting the balance of taxation in favour of indirect taxes and away from progressive direct taxes. How would you summarise "centrism" and why do you consider it to be a good thing?

    Not read Britannia Unchained so not able to comment on that.
    I think overall that there is a wide range of opinion and view regarding politics - and of course extremes. Central, centralism, whatever I believe leads to stability, is it "good", well define that! I personally prefer it to the alternatives.
    I favour as close to a functioning society as we can get given we are all flawed. Only the Kingdom of God will give utopia, so go the middle course until that happens.
    Summary of centrism (mine): a non ideologically driven system of government that is mostly pragmatic, agrees and promotes some degree of interventionism, is broadly utilitarianist, democratic and balances the sometimes competing issues of state dependency with individual liberty and choice.

    If you're in favour of stability why on earth would you support the huge upheaval involved in Brexit? As to the best path being the middle one isn't that simply the fallacy of the golden mean?

    As an add on, and of course I have no idea how you voted at the last GE, but if stability is something you too also favour why would anyone vote for a socialist as PM?

    Stability, to me, is not a goal in itself. If the status quo is harming huge numbers of people, and it is, then change is essential.

    When you say the status quo is harming huge numbers of people and it is. Can you give a number of people that are being harmed, show the evidence and then outline what specific essential changes that are required, and how they will be achieved via our democratic process.

    That's a stunningly easy question to answer. There's very robust data on austerity, or the effects of stupid policies like universal credit etc. etc.

    But let's take a look at Covid-19. I can't believe I'm linking to the Daily Mail but even they're reporting the science here: Imposing Lockdown 2 weeks earlier could have prevented 80% of deaths. Even if we accept that such modelling will have large confidence intervals, the nature of exponential growth means we are inevitably talking about Tens of thousands of deaths

    In January, scientists in the UK began working on a vaccine. In February and early March the catastrophe in Spain and Italy was evident.

    Good and decisive leadership would have made a difference.

    So in a very direct way, that is tens of thousands of people being harmed by our government.

    He may have won an election but it remains a terrible, terrible Prime Minister.

    AFZ

    Perhaps wait until the final death toll figures are in? Wait until the inquiries, just maybe?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    admin mode/
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    As pointed out, there's nothing wrong with fair and reasonable discussion, but this is not the place to have it. Purgatory is.

    Moreover, failing to respect the Crew acting in that capacity is a Commandment 6 breach.

    Commandment 6 also states that any posts disputing a Crew ruling belong in the Styx.

    You indicated earlier that you were familiar with the 10Cs. Now's the time to demonstrate that, and by now I mean now now.

    /admin mode.

    Hi.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.

    No personal attacks from me old bean. Not questioning your role.

    6. Accountability – by posting in Hell, you agree that you are accountable for what you write. There is no comeback from here – no whining, no complaining, no appeals to lower authority. You've reached the end of the road.

    No whining or complaining from me, all is good ;-)

    In this post you were clearly disagreeing with the ruling. And now you're challenging an admin warning, still in the wrong place.

    Not only that, you're being a smartass. Desist: you are in Last Chance Saloon.

    /admin mode
  • MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Sorry, poorly worded. I voted Labour 2010, was mostly indifferent during the coalition years and abandoned Labour when Corbyn became leader.
    I don't think Boris is "hard right" by any stretch of the imagination, I consider him a one nation conservative. I think if there was a hard right conservative govt rather than a pragmatic mix the opposition would be hard left which would polarise the nation.
    For me centralist is exemplified by individuals like Dan Jarvis and on domestic policy people like Blair.

    I don't think Johnson is hard right either. I think he's a Groucho Marxist. The people he has brought into government are hard right, unless you think Britannia Unchained describes a centrist (not centralist, that implies centralising) vision. Blair's domestic policy covers quite a wide range. There's not necessarily a clear link between supporting the creation of SureStart, devolving power to Scotland and Wales, centralising power within England over education, shifting the burden of funding Higher Education to students, shifting the balance of taxation in favour of indirect taxes and away from progressive direct taxes. How would you summarise "centrism" and why do you consider it to be a good thing?

    Not read Britannia Unchained so not able to comment on that.
    I think overall that there is a wide range of opinion and view regarding politics - and of course extremes. Central, centralism, whatever I believe leads to stability, is it "good", well define that! I personally prefer it to the alternatives.
    I favour as close to a functioning society as we can get given we are all flawed. Only the Kingdom of God will give utopia, so go the middle course until that happens.
    Summary of centrism (mine): a non ideologically driven system of government that is mostly pragmatic, agrees and promotes some degree of interventionism, is broadly utilitarianist, democratic and balances the sometimes competing issues of state dependency with individual liberty and choice.

    If you're in favour of stability why on earth would you support the huge upheaval involved in Brexit? As to the best path being the middle one isn't that simply the fallacy of the golden mean?

    As an add on, and of course I have no idea how you voted at the last GE, but if stability is something you too also favour why would anyone vote for a socialist as PM?

    Stability, to me, is not a goal in itself. If the status quo is harming huge numbers of people, and it is, then change is essential.

    When you say the status quo is harming huge numbers of people and it is. Can you give a number of people that are being harmed, show the evidence and then outline what specific essential changes that are required, and how they will be achieved via our democratic process.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/
    Increased health and social care spending funded through general taxation would prevent this continuing. The means for achieving it? Electing a Labour government seems the surest route.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    As pointed out, there's nothing wrong with fair and reasonable discussion, but this is not the place to have it. Purgatory is.

    Moreover, failing to respect the Crew acting in that capacity is a Commandment 6 breach.

    Commandment 6 also states that any posts disputing a Crew ruling belong in the Styx.

    You indicated earlier that you were familiar with the 10Cs. Now's the time to demonstrate that, and by now I mean now now.

    /admin mode.

    Hi.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.

    No personal attacks from me old bean. Not questioning your role.

    6. Accountability – by posting in Hell, you agree that you are accountable for what you write. There is no comeback from here – no whining, no complaining, no appeals to lower authority. You've reached the end of the road.

    No whining or complaining from me, all is good ;-)

    In this post you were clearly disagreeing with the ruling. And now you're challenging an admin warning, still in the wrong place.

    Not only that, you're being a smartass. Desist: you are in Last Chance Saloon.

    /admin mode

    Warning for what? Please help me out here, go for the charitable nature, what is it that I am specifically being warned not to do? Is it the defense of Boris and the Tories that irks? Spell it out please, what warning am I in defiance of? Apologies if it was the whose being a jerk thing. It was a question, not an accusation. Peace man.
  • MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    As pointed out, there's nothing wrong with fair and reasonable discussion, but this is not the place to have it. Purgatory is.

    Moreover, failing to respect the Crew acting in that capacity is a Commandment 6 breach.

    Commandment 6 also states that any posts disputing a Crew ruling belong in the Styx.

    You indicated earlier that you were familiar with the 10Cs. Now's the time to demonstrate that, and by now I mean now now.

    /admin mode.

    Hi.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.

    No personal attacks from me old bean. Not questioning your role.

    6. Accountability – by posting in Hell, you agree that you are accountable for what you write. There is no comeback from here – no whining, no complaining, no appeals to lower authority. You've reached the end of the road.

    No whining or complaining from me, all is good ;-)

    In this post you were clearly disagreeing with the ruling. And now you're challenging an admin warning, still in the wrong place.

    Not only that, you're being a smartass. Desist: you are in Last Chance Saloon.

    /admin mode

    Warning for what? Please help me out here, go for the charitable nature, what is it that I am specifically being warned not to do? Is it the defense of Boris and the Tories that irks? Spell it out please, what warning am I in defiance of? Apologies if it was the whose being a jerk thing. It was a question, not an accusation. Peace man.

    Dude, just take it to the Styx and sort it out there.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Sorry, poorly worded. I voted Labour 2010, was mostly indifferent during the coalition years and abandoned Labour when Corbyn became leader.
    I don't think Boris is "hard right" by any stretch of the imagination, I consider him a one nation conservative. I think if there was a hard right conservative govt rather than a pragmatic mix the opposition would be hard left which would polarise the nation.
    For me centralist is exemplified by individuals like Dan Jarvis and on domestic policy people like Blair.

    I don't think Johnson is hard right either. I think he's a Groucho Marxist. The people he has brought into government are hard right, unless you think Britannia Unchained describes a centrist (not centralist, that implies centralising) vision. Blair's domestic policy covers quite a wide range. There's not necessarily a clear link between supporting the creation of SureStart, devolving power to Scotland and Wales, centralising power within England over education, shifting the burden of funding Higher Education to students, shifting the balance of taxation in favour of indirect taxes and away from progressive direct taxes. How would you summarise "centrism" and why do you consider it to be a good thing?

    Not read Britannia Unchained so not able to comment on that.
    I think overall that there is a wide range of opinion and view regarding politics - and of course extremes. Central, centralism, whatever I believe leads to stability, is it "good", well define that! I personally prefer it to the alternatives.
    I favour as close to a functioning society as we can get given we are all flawed. Only the Kingdom of God will give utopia, so go the middle course until that happens.
    Summary of centrism (mine): a non ideologically driven system of government that is mostly pragmatic, agrees and promotes some degree of interventionism, is broadly utilitarianist, democratic and balances the sometimes competing issues of state dependency with individual liberty and choice.

    If you're in favour of stability why on earth would you support the huge upheaval involved in Brexit? As to the best path being the middle one isn't that simply the fallacy of the golden mean?

    As an add on, and of course I have no idea how you voted at the last GE, but if stability is something you too also favour why would anyone vote for a socialist as PM?

    Stability, to me, is not a goal in itself. If the status quo is harming huge numbers of people, and it is, then change is essential.

    When you say the status quo is harming huge numbers of people and it is. Can you give a number of people that are being harmed, show the evidence and then outline what specific essential changes that are required, and how they will be achieved via our democratic process.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/
    Increased health and social care spending funded through general taxation would prevent this continuing. The means for achieving it? Electing a Labour government seems the surest route.

    Ok, don't disagree with some of that. So what would be your tax increase policies and how do you think electing a Labour govt would be achieved?
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    As pointed out, there's nothing wrong with fair and reasonable discussion, but this is not the place to have it. Purgatory is.

    Moreover, failing to respect the Crew acting in that capacity is a Commandment 6 breach.

    Commandment 6 also states that any posts disputing a Crew ruling belong in the Styx.

    You indicated earlier that you were familiar with the 10Cs. Now's the time to demonstrate that, and by now I mean now now.

    /admin mode.

    Hi.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.

    No personal attacks from me old bean. Not questioning your role.

    6. Accountability – by posting in Hell, you agree that you are accountable for what you write. There is no comeback from here – no whining, no complaining, no appeals to lower authority. You've reached the end of the road.

    No whining or complaining from me, all is good ;-)

    In this post you were clearly disagreeing with the ruling. And now you're challenging an admin warning, still in the wrong place.

    Not only that, you're being a smartass. Desist: you are in Last Chance Saloon.

    /admin mode

    Warning for what? Please help me out here, go for the charitable nature, what is it that I am specifically being warned not to do? Is it the defense of Boris and the Tories that irks? Spell it out please, what warning am I in defiance of? Apologies if it was the whose being a jerk thing. It was a question, not an accusation. Peace man.

    Dude, just take it to the Styx and sort it out there.

    Asking a question, don't have a dispute!
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    admin mode/

    1. @MrMandid You are being warned not to crusade, which means posting on one topic to the exclusion (or virtual exclusion) of all others, whatever that topic is. The last topic for which somebody was suspended for crusading was, if I recall correctly, Constantinianism. We don't like one-trick posters whatever the topic (We don't like token fig-leaf posts elsewhere to invoke when challenged on crusading either).

    2. Defending "Boris and the Tories" is not against any rules or guidelines. Crusading is. Now you've had your fun on this thread, either man up and post a focused discussion question in Purgatory and contribute on Purgatory terms, or shut up. Honestly, having a reasoned discussion with a Tory voter is something hard to come by. It would be welcome.

    3. Challenging Crew posts is allowed only in the Styx, not in-thread. You've claimed knowledge of the 10Cs and disobeyed that three times now and you're still here. Count yourself lucky.

    4. "Apologies if" are worth precisely zilch. Get a feel for the boards, respect our culture, and you'll be welcome. Carry on in this vein, not so much.

    6. If your response to this message isn't deemed appropriate, expect not to be able to post real soon now. You clearly have a brain. Use it sensibly.

    7. Everyone else stop being Purgatorial here and get back to complaining about Boris Johnson. It's what you do best on this thread.

    /admin mode
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    Boris is a cunt.
    Am I now part of the gang?
  • MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Sorry, poorly worded. I voted Labour 2010, was mostly indifferent during the coalition years and abandoned Labour when Corbyn became leader.
    I don't think Boris is "hard right" by any stretch of the imagination, I consider him a one nation conservative. I think if there was a hard right conservative govt rather than a pragmatic mix the opposition would be hard left which would polarise the nation.
    For me centralist is exemplified by individuals like Dan Jarvis and on domestic policy people like Blair.

    I don't think Johnson is hard right either. I think he's a Groucho Marxist. The people he has brought into government are hard right, unless you think Britannia Unchained describes a centrist (not centralist, that implies centralising) vision. Blair's domestic policy covers quite a wide range. There's not necessarily a clear link between supporting the creation of SureStart, devolving power to Scotland and Wales, centralising power within England over education, shifting the burden of funding Higher Education to students, shifting the balance of taxation in favour of indirect taxes and away from progressive direct taxes. How would you summarise "centrism" and why do you consider it to be a good thing?

    Not read Britannia Unchained so not able to comment on that.
    I think overall that there is a wide range of opinion and view regarding politics - and of course extremes. Central, centralism, whatever I believe leads to stability, is it "good", well define that! I personally prefer it to the alternatives.
    I favour as close to a functioning society as we can get given we are all flawed. Only the Kingdom of God will give utopia, so go the middle course until that happens.
    Summary of centrism (mine): a non ideologically driven system of government that is mostly pragmatic, agrees and promotes some degree of interventionism, is broadly utilitarianist, democratic and balances the sometimes competing issues of state dependency with individual liberty and choice.

    If you're in favour of stability why on earth would you support the huge upheaval involved in Brexit? As to the best path being the middle one isn't that simply the fallacy of the golden mean?

    As an add on, and of course I have no idea how you voted at the last GE, but if stability is something you too also favour why would anyone vote for a socialist as PM?

    Stability, to me, is not a goal in itself. If the status quo is harming huge numbers of people, and it is, then change is essential.

    When you say the status quo is harming huge numbers of people and it is. Can you give a number of people that are being harmed, show the evidence and then outline what specific essential changes that are required, and how they will be achieved via our democratic process.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/
    Increased health and social care spending funded through general taxation would prevent this continuing. The means for achieving it? Electing a Labour government seems the surest route.

    Ok, don't disagree with some of that. So what would be your tax increase policies and how do you think electing a Labour govt would be achieved?

    I think Starmer's approach of carefully and politely pointing out Johnson's every screw up and lie will help. Much as I agree with Corbyn on many things Starmer is much more suited to being on top of the sort of forensic detail and precise questioning needed to puncture Johnson's bluster. A bit of message discipline and the expulsion of the fucking dicks who spent the last 5 years sabotaging Labour's chances. The collapse of the right wing print media would be a tiny silver lining to the enormous cloud of awfulness that is the present situation. Breaking the stranglehold they currently have on the media narrative would give Labour a fair chance to put its case.

    Personally I'd want to aggressively go after inheritance tax avoidance and close the loopholes that mean it is only the moderately wealthy and unprepared that end up paying. The Duke of Westminster being able to inherit around £10 billion without paying inheritance tax is absolutely absurd. I'd also want to do something like what the SNP have been doing here, lowering the rate of taxation on earners below the average and raising it on those above. I'd be happy to pay, say, an extra 5p in the pound on earnings over £30k if it applied to everyone. I'd also like to see NI reformed so that it doesn't end up being a tax on working for a living.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Sorry, poorly worded. I voted Labour 2010, was mostly indifferent during the coalition years and abandoned Labour when Corbyn became leader.
    I don't think Boris is "hard right" by any stretch of the imagination, I consider him a one nation conservative. I think if there was a hard right conservative govt rather than a pragmatic mix the opposition would be hard left which would polarise the nation.
    For me centralist is exemplified by individuals like Dan Jarvis and on domestic policy people like Blair.

    I don't think Johnson is hard right either. I think he's a Groucho Marxist. The people he has brought into government are hard right, unless you think Britannia Unchained describes a centrist (not centralist, that implies centralising) vision. Blair's domestic policy covers quite a wide range. There's not necessarily a clear link between supporting the creation of SureStart, devolving power to Scotland and Wales, centralising power within England over education, shifting the burden of funding Higher Education to students, shifting the balance of taxation in favour of indirect taxes and away from progressive direct taxes. How would you summarise "centrism" and why do you consider it to be a good thing?

    Not read Britannia Unchained so not able to comment on that.
    I think overall that there is a wide range of opinion and view regarding politics - and of course extremes. Central, centralism, whatever I believe leads to stability, is it "good", well define that! I personally prefer it to the alternatives.
    I favour as close to a functioning society as we can get given we are all flawed. Only the Kingdom of God will give utopia, so go the middle course until that happens.
    Summary of centrism (mine): a non ideologically driven system of government that is mostly pragmatic, agrees and promotes some degree of interventionism, is broadly utilitarianist, democratic and balances the sometimes competing issues of state dependency with individual liberty and choice.

    If you're in favour of stability why on earth would you support the huge upheaval involved in Brexit? As to the best path being the middle one isn't that simply the fallacy of the golden mean?

    As an add on, and of course I have no idea how you voted at the last GE, but if stability is something you too also favour why would anyone vote for a socialist as PM?

    Stability, to me, is not a goal in itself. If the status quo is harming huge numbers of people, and it is, then change is essential.

    When you say the status quo is harming huge numbers of people and it is. Can you give a number of people that are being harmed, show the evidence and then outline what specific essential changes that are required, and how they will be achieved via our democratic process.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/
    Increased health and social care spending funded through general taxation would prevent this continuing. The means for achieving it? Electing a Labour government seems the surest route.

    Ok, don't disagree with some of that. So what would be your tax increase policies and how do you think electing a Labour govt would be achieved?

    I think Starmer's approach of carefully and politely pointing out Johnson's every screw up and lie will help. Much as I agree with Corbyn on many things Starmer is much more suited to being on top of the sort of forensic detail and precise questioning needed to puncture Johnson's bluster. A bit of message discipline and the expulsion of the fucking dicks who spent the last 5 years sabotaging Labour's chances. The collapse of the right wing print media would be a tiny silver lining to the enormous cloud of awfulness that is the present situation. Breaking the stranglehold they currently have on the media narrative would give Labour a fair chance to put its case.

    Personally I'd want to aggressively go after inheritance tax avoidance and close the loopholes that mean it is only the moderately wealthy and unprepared that end up paying. The Duke of Westminster being able to inherit around £10 billion without paying inheritance tax is absolutely absurd. I'd also want to do something like what the SNP have been doing here, lowering the rate of taxation on earners below the average and raising it on those above. I'd be happy to pay, say, an extra 5p in the pound on earnings over £30k if it applied to everyone. I'd also like to see NI reformed so that it doesn't end up being a tax on working for a living.

    Sorry, can't respond. I may get kicked out of hell.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    admin mode/
    MrMandid wrote: »
    Boris is a cunt.
    Am I now part of the gang?

    No, because you failed to digest point 4 in the post above that one.

    Getting a feel for the boards and absorbing board culture includes realising which words are beyond the pale, even here. There's a reason we discourage newbies from starting off in Hell.

    You now have a couple of weeks' reflection during which you are welcome to read around here and think about how you could make less of a hash of things when your posting privileges are restored, bearing in mind that when they are, you'll be in the admins' crosshairs for some while.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, this has nothing to do with your politics.

    /admin mode
  • Everybody else ( @alienfromzog and @Arethosemyfeet specifically), Serious Discussion belongs in the appropriate threads in Purgatory. You could have done that when you were directed, urged, and begged to, and instead you persisted. Hang your heads in shame. MrMandid is not available for comment until June, so don't @ him or quote him.

    This thread remains open for rants, broadsides and general exasperation at the fuckwitted arsemonger we have for a PM.

    DT
    HH
  • Fair Enough oh Doctor of the toasting fork...

    Please forgive my indulgence but I do love irony. On the old Ship I had a track record of my Hell rants being moved to Purgatory when they became too serious - the irony, in this case, being that our genuine attempts to help a Troll not be a Troll is what led to this serious engagement...

    Anyway, to get things back on track:

    Up in The Other Place I posted this about current levels of infection in the community, from ONS data. My point being that these data clearly show that we are not in a position to move from lockdown to effective track & trace that is vital to stopping the disease getting out of control. Again.

    So this is my specific exasperation at the fuckwitted arsemonger we have for a PM. (For today). I don't know when the data processing was finished but it's likely the PM has had it for at least 24 hrs before it was released to the public. Possibly longer; where is the emergency public announcement? A great chance for him to play Churchillian... you know "This is not the beginning of the end..." or "This is still a very dark hour... or something. But no, just laziness, recklessness and disengagement. The official policy of HM Government, as far as I can tell, is cross our fingers and hope.

    I desperately hope I'm wrong. I desperately hope it won't be as bad as I fear. But Fuck, what a moron! I feel like I am watching a slow-motion car crash - as over the next 2 weeks we see case numbers tracking upwards again... The one thing that makes me think we might just get away with it is that most people appear to realise that simply going back to normal is not an option yet. Sadly the minority who don't (or who are forced to unsafe behaviours by economic necessity) does not need to be very large to threaten us all. Again.

    Thousands will suffer and die because our PM is a moron (as thousands already have).

    AFZ
  • Apologies for the double post but writing that reminded me of the film Whoops Apocalypse and this sequence in particular... enjoy! (very black humour really).

    AFZ
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    I had a Horrid Thought, just for a moment, that the toryshire council @Arethosemyfeet was thinking of might have been my local area.

    Not so - on looking back at last year's election results (O! So long ago! Back in the dear, dead days, beyond recall!), I see that our two new councillors were from the tory party, and the Labour party. The others came nowhere near...

    ...but it may be that there was some peculiar place, in deepest toryshire, where the Labour candidate was outrun by the others. Yes, unlikely - but not impossible.

    Maybe that's what turned Mr Mandid into a raving loony Boris fan? The thought that only by jumping onto the Boris Bus was Success™ to be somehow, somewhere, achieved?
    You're not quite in typical deepest Toryshire though,
  • No indeed - but I still had the Horrid Thought...

    You see, that's what happens when we have a Glorious Leader, Risen from the Bed, like Boris The Great. The sheer awfulness of it turns one's head, and gives one Horrid Thoughts.
    :scream:
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    His hair gets worse.

    Hair gel and combs are not expensive. Giving serious messages in life-threatening times should not be delivered wearing clowns hair.

  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    His hair gets worse.

    Hair gel and combs are not expensive. Giving serious messages in life-threatening times should not be delivered wearing clowns hair.
    This is desperately funny. Well done, you. I mean, in a wider sense it's tragic of course, but I guess we take the laughs where we can get them...
  • It could be worse - He could take to lacquering it, like His bestest buddy does, across the Pond.

    OTOH, at least He's showing solidarity with His faithful people, who are unable to have their own hair cut (or are the hairdressers open again now? I get so confused...).

    Be A Boris! Be A Lert!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    edited May 2020
    Boogie wrote: »
    His hair gets worse.

    Hair gel and combs are not expensive. Giving serious messages in life-threatening times should not be delivered wearing clowns hair.
    Yes, why won't he brush his hair? That's been my question since he first lumbered onto the scene.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Yes, why won't he brush his hair? That's been my question since he first lumbered onto the scene.
    It makes him look authentic and fun to the kind of people to whom he wants to appear authentic and fun. Allegedly he runs his fingers through it before he goes on air to make sure it looks sufficiently tousled and spontaneous.

  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    His hair gets worse.

    Hair gel and combs are not expensive. Giving serious messages in life-threatening times should not be delivered wearing clowns hair.
    Yes, why won't he brush his hair? That's been my question since he first lumbered onto the scene.

    Less why won't he brush his hair, but why does he deliberately muss his hair prior to twitter/media shots...?
    Back in the day when BoJo was merely the Foreign Secretary, there was as BBC documentary about the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office). It became abundantly clear therein that the crumpled/dishevelled look was entirely deliberate and an integral part of the persona he was trying to present. I never understood what that persona was, and why it was attempted, mind you. But then I don't seem to be wired to understand what drives most of our UK politicians....
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I don't know if this can be viewed in the UK, but it has a pretty funny take on Boris Johnson, as well as assorted other world leaders.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'm surprised to read that Churchill was a great PM. OK, he was PM during WW II, but there must be a fair bit of doubt about the contribution he made to the victory*. His terms of office in the early 1950's were not exactly brilliant. Apart from anything else, he was strongly against return of the British colonies in Africa to those from whom they had been taken.

    *Public front apart - he was pretty good at promoting himself.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Boris’ hair is of purse the least of his problems. However it is one more thing to pick up on.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    How Churchill can ever be forgiven Gallipoli is hard enough to comprehend.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Good point - and the Dieppe raid is another example.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm surprised to read that Churchill was a great PM. OK, he was PM during WW II, but there must be a fair bit of doubt about the contribution he made to the victory*. His terms of office in the early 1950's were not exactly brilliant. Apart from anything else, he was strongly against return of the British colonies in Africa to those from whom they had been taken.

    *Public front apart - he was pretty good at promoting himself.

    The British right loves simple narratives and equates stirring rhetoric with fact. The "great man" theory of history requires that success must result from a "great man" in charge. Churchill was in charge, the war was won, ergo Churchill must be a Great Man. And of course the right has controlled both the media and the school curriculum (most of the time) since WW2 so the myth of Churchill goes largely unchallenged. To publicly challenge it is to become an Enemy Of The People.
  • I've never found it that difficult to challenge Churchillian mythology and, other than in the red-tops and during times of rah-rah-rah national celebration, feel that there's often a more nuanced portrayal of him in what we might call the 'quality' media.

    If anything, he's one of these figures that suffers from uncritical adulation on the one hand and unnuanced carping on the other. Sure, it it wasn't for the summer of 1940 he wouldn't be remembered that fondly - Gallipoli, unreconstructed Imperialism, apparent indifference - I wouldn't go as far as complicity - in the Bengal Famine.

    As far as unnuanced narratives go, those can be found both on the right and on the left.

    If that sounds too Purgatorial, I'll add that I think we are seeing both on this thread.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Read Alanbrooke's War Diaries if you want a nuanced, balanced, warts-and-all picture of Churchill as War Leader.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Sure, it it wasn't for the summer of 1940 he wouldn't be remembered that fondly - Gallipoli, unreconstructed Imperialism, apparent indifference - I wouldn't go as far as complicity - in the Bengal Famine.

    There is a reasonable amount of evidence that the Bengal Famine was caused by and its effects exacerbated by policy failure.
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm surprised to read that Churchill was a great PM. OK, he was PM during WW II, but there must be a fair bit of doubt about the contribution he made to the victory*. His terms of office in the early 1950's were not exactly brilliant. Apart from anything else, he was strongly against return of the British colonies in Africa to those from whom they had been taken.

    *Public front apart - he was pretty good at promoting himself.

    Having read his early books about the wars in Afghanistan and Sudan, he is incredibly condescending and patronising about the 'natives'.
  • There's been a fair amount of comment about the need for a country under the stresses of war (or an epidemic) to put their trust in their leaders, here's an article from The Guardian from March reflecting that:
    Fearful people need the comfort of thinking they are in the hands of capable leaders. In benign times, there is not much psychological cost to ourselves to regard politicians as useless knaves. In an emergency, many of us need to believe that there are smart people at the top who know what to do. This is accompanied by a desire for national solidarity, <snip>

    Boris Johnson’s currently buoyant approval ratings tell us nothing about what the public will think of him by the time this is over.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I recognise that need - I see it in myself.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Read Alanbrooke's War Diaries if you want a nuanced, balanced, warts-and-all picture of Churchill as War Leader.

    Yes, having made similar comments on the Ship a decade or so ago, I was directed to them - made arrangements with the local library and read through them.
  • Sure, it it wasn't for the summer of 1940 he wouldn't be remembered that fondly - Gallipoli, unreconstructed Imperialism, apparent indifference - I wouldn't go as far as complicity - in the Bengal Famine.

    There is a reasonable amount of evidence that the Bengal Famine was caused by and its effects exacerbated by policy failure.

    Sure, there's policy failure and there's deliberate policy failure.

    I don't have a problem with accepting that Churchillian policies were partly responsible or exacerbated the Bengal Famine. What I do find hard to swallow - and this is where the far left can be just as culpable of myth making as the far right - is the idea that he deliberately fostered it and allowed hundreds of thousands of people to perish simply to bolster British control of the Sub-Continent.

    It's a bit like some of the myths around the Irish Potato Famine. Yes, British laissez-faire policies exacerbated the effects and there were egregious comments about feckless Irish Catholics getting what they deserved and so on - but the idea that Britain deliberately started the Famine (which also broke out in Belgium, Germany and elsewhere at the same time) in order to maintain control of Ireland is a complete myth.

    Yet it is one I've heard promulgated on the left.

    It's not only right-wingers who are myth-makers and piss-takers.

    I grew up in South Wales where Churchill was still seen as an ogre for sending troops in to quell the Tonypandy Riots in 1910. My brother-in-law's grandfather was beaten up by 'Churchill's Redcoats' despite having lost an arm in a mining accident and being nowhere near the rioting.

    I always thought that the redcoat thing was a myth until I found out that the first units to arrive were still dressed in parade ground uniform.

    People were still outraged about it 50 or 60 years later. As ever, there are two sides to the story. The striking miners had every right to be angry but the were looting and burning and - yes, it had to be said - targeting Jewish owned businesses such as jewellers. Ok, these businesses were probably targeted because they contained valuables rather than because the owners were Jewish but whatever the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of the great Cambrian Coal Strike, the riots certainly weren't a Sunday School outing.

  • Sure, it it wasn't for the summer of 1940 he wouldn't be remembered that fondly - Gallipoli, unreconstructed Imperialism, apparent indifference - I wouldn't go as far as complicity - in the Bengal Famine.

    There is a reasonable amount of evidence that the Bengal Famine was caused by and its effects exacerbated by policy failure.

    Sure, there's policy failure and there's deliberate policy failure.

    I don't have a problem with accepting that Churchillian policies were partly responsible or exacerbated the Bengal Famine. What I do find hard to swallow - and this is where the far left can be just as culpable of myth making as the far right - is the idea that he deliberately fostered it and allowed hundreds of thousands of people to perish simply to bolster British control of the Sub-Continent.

    No one in this thread is putting forward that argument -- I think you need to look at the relative levels of influence and reach of the different camps extending different arguments.
  • I haven't heard the story that the Brits started the potato famine, (how do you start blight?), but the story that they didn't break sweat to relieve it, is quite common, plus that food was being exported from Ireland.
  • I haven't heard the story that the Brits started the potato famine, (how do you start blight?), but the story that they didn't break sweat to relieve it, is quite common, plus that food was being exported from Ireland.

    Both of which are true. It wasn't necessarily anti-Irish so much as it was anti-poor. Victorian approaches to poverty under the 1834 Poor Law were astonishingly awful.
  • "Stay alert" is not a public health directive.

    What does this man and his gov't base opening up schools on? Why are other jurisdictions with lower per capita numbers of infections and spread rate keeping them closed? Is there something about schooling in England, internet infrastructures and inequality which makes it impossible to teach online and do exams online?

  • "Stay alert" is not a public health directive.

    What does this man and his gov't base opening up schools on? Why are other jurisdictions with lower per capita numbers of infections and spread rate keeping them closed? Is there something about schooling in England, internet infrastructures and inequality which makes it impossible to teach online and do exams online?

    Exams online would require a complete re-tooling of the exam system to the point where I'm not sure it would even be comparable to the existing system (then again I think the system of guess work they've implemented for this year is going to leave a lot of kids with question marks over their qualifications). Inequality means we have kids who are sharing a single room with their entire family in "temporary" accommodation, have no access to the internet or share their access via a single device, probably a phone, with the rest of their family. Others will be caring for younger siblings so that parents can work. In parts of the country the only way to get decent internet is via satellite (though that is pretty rare now).

    Thing is, all these things are true in Scotland as well as in England (though the housing situation is far worse in London than elsewhere). This is about getting parents back to work, not about children at all. The same papers baying for teachers to martyr themselves on the altar of Mammon are the ones who whine constantly about how nothing gets done in the second half of the summer term so it should be perfectly fine to take their weans out for weeks to go to Disneyland when it's cheaper.
  • Open-book exams are very different from what had been planned, so it's not a simple matter of putting the questions already written online. There's probably 6 months work, minimum, to write suitable questions for an open-book exam to test students understanding and go through the necessary steps to provide accreditation. It's been hard enough for our university to do that when we self-accredit (and, even so we've got a whole host of scripts where the students have clearly copied verbatim from lecture notes, the text books, an internet resource or even the model answers from previous years exams - if you copy a model answer produced by the lecturer who set the exam and is marking it that's not smart, even worse if you include the typo that was in the model answer or have your answer include the words "additional credit will be given for ...")

    There are issues of equality and some pupils being disadvantaged through poor (or non-existent) access to online teaching - I know our local authority has been supplying laptops to those without, but they still need an internet connection at home and somewhere to work at home. I can see an argument for including those students who can't study at home with the children of key workers within the cohort who are currently being taught in schools.

    But, as far as I can tell, the current restrictions have reduced the R value to only a bit below unity and so any easing is very likely to push it back above unity. And, the number of people within the community who are infected is large enough that letting R go above unity will result in a very large number of new infections.
  • edited May 2020
    It took about 4 weeks here to change exams for all schools and universities. A much richer, denser population country has the ability that a 2 bit backwater can sort. The gov't or schools supply laptops and pay for the internet. It's not rocket surgery. No the results of schooling this way are not comparable but that's the wrong focus.

    I just listened to BBC Radio4 Any Answers. Man says 'I'm willing to take the risks', which seemed to me to be problem. It's not about the individual. This is more than cultural differences in emphasis on individual rights and prioritizing self. It's a spiritual and moral problem. We, the world's people need protection from such ideas. This Boris is dangerous, has been dangerous. Even his own infection and recovery didn't affect him. Doubtless his own death wouldn't affect him.
  • It took about 4 weeks here to change exams for all schools and universities. A much richer, denser population country has the ability that a 2 bit backwater can sort. The gov't or schools supply laptops and pay for the internet. It's not rocket surgery. No the results of schooling this way are not comparable but that's the wrong focus.

    It's not the wrong focus. It's secondary but it is important. In the UK, for better or worse (mostly worse, I suspect) your exam results in particular subjects at particular times follow you around all your life. You can be applying for a job 20 years down the line and they may still be asking you what you got in exams aged 16. Worse, the results determine future study, and if the inequalities of the situation exacerbate existing differences in performance (and, as a teacher, it's really important to acknowledge that unconscious bias will likely affect the outcomes of the teacher assessments currently under way) then the consequences will echo for decades to come.
  • It took about 4 weeks here to change exams for all schools and universities.
    Aye, about that to sort out our university exams. But, that only needed the lecturer who gave the course modifying the questions already set to shift the emphasis on the questions towards something which can test the student's understanding if they have access to their notes and text books. And, then have someone else in the department to look it over and confirm it's a decent test of the students understanding. Scale that up to an exam board setting exams in several dozen subjects that need to be sat by thousands of students across the country then if it's done in a few weeks then that's far from ideal. And, you still need to be able to get those out to students and give them somewhere that they can sit the exams.

    And, that's just the exams. How do you teach students who don't have internet access at home (you can provide a laptop, how do you get an engineer in to hook up broadband where there isn't any?), who share a bedroom with a sibling and their only work space is bit of the dining table if they're lucky? Not everyone has an internet connection, a desk to work at, a quiet room where there isn't a load of people coming and going and the TV on (to entertain the younger siblings). As I said, there's a good argument that the first step to reduce lockdown could be to get these children back into school, because these are the kids most disadvantaged by being out of school. They're also most likely to be disadvantaged by the "was that grade accurate?" uncertainty over this years results - those who are going onto university will be mostly all in the same boat, by the time they go looking for work the question will be how well they do at uni rather than the results of A levels or Highers; likewise those going on to do A levels/Highers; or those going straight into work, in a few years what they've done for work will be what people look at if they apply for a new job or promotion; those who leave school without a job or further education lined up will have to live with the uncertainty about exam grades until such a time as they can get a job or college place.
    This Boris is dangerous, has been dangerous. Even his own infection and recovery didn't affect him. Doubtless his own death wouldn't affect him.
    On that we can agree. Wholeheartedly.
  • Agreed on the Potato Famine. There were attempts at relief but in a very patchy and paternalistic way.

    On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify. We'd also have to agree where 'far' started and whilst it'd be possible to achieve a broad consensus on that one there'd still be a fuzzy area as to who to include or exclude perhaps. Yes, we'd all include fascists, but how about at the other end? Where do we begin to draw the line there?

    If we were to extend things to broadly conservative or broadly liberal then yes, we could list media and platforms that fit one or t'other category but even then I don't think we'd all agree on who to include or exclude in a binary kind of way.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.

    I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
  • Agreed on the Potato Famine. There were attempts at relief but in a very patchy and paternalistic way.

    On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify. We'd also have to agree where 'far' started and whilst it'd be possible to achieve a broad consensus on that one there'd still be a fuzzy area as to who to include or exclude perhaps. Yes, we'd all include fascists, but how about at the other end? Where do we begin to draw the line there?

    If we were to extend things to broadly conservative or broadly liberal then yes, we could list media and platforms that fit one or t'other category but even then I don't think we'd all agree on who to include or exclude in a binary kind of way.

    As far as I can see the UK daily newspaper market consists of one far left (Morning Star), one centre-left (Mirror), two centrist liberal (Guardian and Independent, though the latter no longer prints), and a whole stable to the right which I'm not even going to try and differentiate into centre-right and far right (Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, and Mail).
Sign In or Register to comment.