RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote: If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

I get people make mistakes under pressure, but when they're this bad they should be accepting some consequences of making those mistakes. And not just the one sacrificial lamb, a multitude need to go. They're asking for a chance to work in some of the highest of high office and the standard to work there is high, I tried isn't close to good enough

1) Tory MPs are not, in general, experts in PPEs or other medical matters so why should their recommendations be given any priority whatsoever?
2) MPs are PEPs (politically exposed persons) under financial regulations. At least in the financial world a transaction relating to a PEP is considered to be higher risk for potential involvement in bribery and corruption and so requires greater scrutiny, not less. (But then I guess this is the kind of 'red tape' that the Tories hate so much.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic ... sed_person

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

I still think you're splitting hairs with an atom laser, but I acknowledge where you are drawing your line.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: 1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

I still think you're splitting hairs with an atom laser, but I acknowledge where you are drawing your line.

Puja

Fair enough.

I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

Digby wrote:I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

The Prince Andrew defence

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

For that to be remotely plausible, she'd need to be someone with no understanding of decency in normal human interactions.

Oh wait, I get it now.

It's interesting to look at the principles which should underpin standards for public life (which came out the Nolan Commission in 1995):

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.

1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

1.4 Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.

1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ic-life--2


It reads as a checklist of things this government doesn't have.

Also, it provides a quick answer to the question 'is Boris Johnson fit for public office?'.

The spending review didn't mention Brexit, this is supposed to be the idea of many in cabinet and yet 40 odd days from it they've nothing to say on it when it comes to the country's finances

Digby wrote:The spending review didn't mention Brexit, this is supposed to be the idea of many in cabinet and yet 40 odd days from it they've nothing to say on it when it comes to the country's finances

Yeah, but concerning.

Dominic Cummings wins Dick of the Year on the Last Leg edging out strong competition from Trump, deserved congrats to Agent Cummings and Goings. #Dom not Don

Shooting themselves in the foot - what'll they do when the mass wipeout of bees results in crop failures

And yet they'd almost certainly win an election were it held next week

Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

Corbyn.

Corbyn was extremely toxic and his leadership needs a full exorcism.

Then Starmer needs to display some of his own policies so votes know what he stands for. At the moment he is seen as more competent than Corbyn and Johnson, but his policy isn't understood.

Corbyn is still a factor. Starmer has closed the gap but there's work to do for Labour to present itself as an effective Govt in waiting.
The Tories still have a pretty strong core support. Many will think they have been presented with a once in a lifetime challenge with Covid and did the best they could. Many will also be seeing what happens with Brexit.
On any objective analysis this Govt are plainly hopeless, led by someone wholly unfit to hold office. Yet Johnson isnt a complete liability - yet - and the Tory brand hasnt been as badly hit as it might be.
The public will likely view things differently once the economics turn against the Govt, as they are bound to do next year.

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

If you get your news from the Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Times, you'll see little reason to change your view.

It's possible that this might change a bit when the polls come in from this weekend onwards... those papers are not entirely happy about flip-flopping and cancelling Christmas. Although the Sun says it show he cares.

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

Wait for the shortages...they're coming.

And when that happens, there's nothing BJ can do to save the sinking ship.

I feel sorry for all you guys. January is going to be one motherfucker of a month for you guys.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

If you get your news from the Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Times, you'll see little reason to change your view.

It's possible that this might change a bit when the polls come in from this weekend onwards... those papers are not entirely happy about flip-flopping and cancelling Christmas. Although the Sun says it show he cares.

The Time is far more critical of the government, although I agree that they are a long way from supporting Starmer.

The Sun editorial yesterday mentioned that they hoped that the recent decision wasn’t based on dodgy science again. A really unhelpful editorial in the midst of a pandemic.

fivepointer wrote:Corbyn is still a factor. Starmer has closed the gap but there's work to do for Labour to present itself as an effective Govt in waiting.
The Tories still have a pretty strong core support. Many will think they have been presented with a once in a lifetime challenge with Covid and did the best they could. Many will also be seeing what happens with Brexit.
On any objective analysis this Govt are plainly hopeless, led by someone wholly unfit to hold office. Yet Johnson isnt a complete liability - yet - and the Tory brand hasnt been as badly hit as it might be.
The public will likely view things differently once the economics turn against the Govt, as they are bound to do next year.

And Starmer had/has a huge mountain to climb. His real concern is that Boris is knifed by his own party and someone more competent replaces him.

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

Wait for the shortages...they're coming.

And when that happens, there's nothing BJ can do to save the sinking ship.

I feel sorry for all you guys. January is going to be one motherfucker of a month for you guys.

I know they are. I went to the British shop here in Amsterdam on the weekend, and all the shelves were empty. This is what the shops will look like soon in the UK, I reckon, once no deal hits.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain to me how Labour aren't ahead in the polls. How the f... can people still be supporting this Tory government??

Corbyn.

Corbyn was extremely toxic and his leadership needs a full exorcism.

Then Starmer needs to display some of his own policies so votes know what he stands for. At the moment he is seen as more competent than Corbyn and Johnson, but his policy isn't understood.

Labour has been doing pathetically ever since 2010. Blaming Corbyn is a very weak response. During Corbyn's time the centrists would castigate Corbyn because he wasn't further ahead. Yet Starmer can barely keep it at a tie... meanwhile the level of breathtakingly brazen cronyism and sheer incompetence of the Johnson's government exceeds all known bounds unabated.

There must be some psychological explanation why so many English people choose this bunch over the others. I guess the propaganda is just too strong.

Sandydragon wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Corbyn is still a factor. Starmer has closed the gap but there's work to do for Labour to present itself as an effective Govt in waiting.
The Tories still have a pretty strong core support. Many will think they have been presented with a once in a lifetime challenge with Covid and did the best they could. Many will also be seeing what happens with Brexit.
On any objective analysis this Govt are plainly hopeless, led by someone wholly unfit to hold office. Yet Johnson isnt a complete liability - yet - and the Tory brand hasnt been as badly hit as it might be.
The public will likely view things differently once the economics turn against the Govt, as they are bound to do next year.

And Starmer had/has a huge mountain to climb. His real concern is that Boris is knifed by his own party and someone more competent replaces him.

They'd probably just go and pick JRM though...