I think it's more sinister than ignorance. It's a deliberate attempt to belittle and delegitimise the protest. He may be a moron but he knows full well taking the knee will not have originated from Game of Thrones. It's his way of saying 'look how silly you all are, I really do not give a feck about your movement'.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think it's more sinister than ignorance. It's a deliberate attempt to belittle and delegitimise the protest. He may be a moron but he knows full well taking the knee will not have originated from Game of Thrones. It's his way of saying 'look how silly you all are, I really do not give a feck about your movement'.
I seem to remember people saying the google app was better right from the start
The app served its purpose of letting them line the pockets of Cummings mates, so now they can make the move that everyone knew they would eventually to something that will actually work.
Yeah, I want to know how much public money they just pissed against a wall for no good reason.
Yeah, maybe I was so keen to quote TTOI that I gave them/ him too much credit. The 'callous cnut in blundering oaf's clothing' look is one of their specialities after all.
Don’t get me wrong, TTOI is great and Raab deserves no credit. He’s the worst of all the leading Tories imo and that’s saying something. But unlike his Dover-Calais comment, this time I think he is deliberately showing off his ignorance. It’s showing he doesn’t know the history of the protest because he doesn’t think it’s worthy of his time or attention. It’s displaying contempt for it by pretending that for all he knows it may as well have come from a TV show.
I dunno. Based on Grayling et al it's hard to know where the incompetence ends and cnutishnes begins.
There's no doubt Raab is one of the very worst though. Shame we don't get to see him blubbing his way through Covid briefings anymore to be honest. That showed a genuine brittleness very close beneath to the veneer of arrogance.
Mail publisher pays damages to Palestinian centre over 'grotesque' libel in Tom Bower serialisation
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail...r-grotesque-libel-in-tom-bower-serialisation/
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail...r-grotesque-libel-in-tom-bower-serialisation/
I think it's worth noting that Kaepernick decided to take the knee based on advice from Nate Boyer. Boyer took the decision to stand for the national anthem. Kaepernick had no issue with that. Pressuring people to take the knee is counterintuitive, surely. Raab really didn't help himself with the GoT comment though. 
I've already changed my political stance over the past 15 years from a more authoritarian and economic right wing to a more libertarian and economically right wing (closer to old fashion liberalism) so I'm not averse to change. I wonder whether you've ever changed political views or like the majority of the left do you not need to change because you're obviously right morally and intellectually?
The truth is what I believe in stems from doctrines written about by many Nobel Prize winning economists so it isn't "wrong" by any means, just as tax and spend leftist economics isn't "wrong" (apart from in my opinion of course).
I've read both sides and agree with the former rather than the latter. I believe that governmental inefficiencies mean even at the height of the laffer curve in terms of taxation there will be nowhere near enough tax to account for inequalities and inefficiencies. The solution in my view is to give cash to the poorest (aforementioned tapered basic/negative income) and let private sector efficiencies mean their money will not only go much further but the poorest will have the pride in using that investment in them to rise out of their backgrounds. Rather than taking their money and them forcing them to go through often inhumane means to get it back.
This is why I avoid as much tax as possible, whenever possible, but also give to charity (so it's nothing to do with selfishness).
I'd also be interested about your thoughts on the efficiencies of subsidising the education and health (amongst other things) of millionaires?
Last edited:
Gosh how radical
"Sometimes I let my hair down and buy the lads and I a round of cognac instead of our usual brandy night caps."
The difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism is no lesser a change in ideology than changing from left to right or vice versa (obviously not economically).
Nasty bunch these dimwitted Tory cnuts.
Do you think you associate more with classical libertarianism now or do you think modern libertarianism associates more with you?
All of those words to avoid saying “Oh shit. I never looked at it that way. Of course raising the tax threshold is the wrong tool to balance society”.
It’s such a small point to concede. Non of your Nobel mates would question it.
To the diatribe : Are you doubling down? Do you truly believe that giving everyone the same additional amount of money, changes poor peoples lives? I shouldn’t have to unpack this for it to make sense.
If someone is below the poverty line and you give them an extra £100 a month, that goes towards making ends meet.
If someone is wealthy, that additional money is 100% disposable income, instantly providing them with more leverage over people with less. More chance of second homes and and and.
The divide widens because the money can be used to widen it at the top. The people at the bottom cannot use it to close that gap.
Also : If you think government is inefficient, wait until you read up on Charities.
It’s absolutely ok for you to believe “I work hard and I care more about myself, than society”. But you have to admit it.
I'm not sure you've read my posts as firstly I said that my ideal measure would be a negative income tax with a petered basic income. But that in the absence of wholesale changes to the tax system overnight VAT reductions, fuels duty reductions, lower council tax band reductions, the abolition of taxes on necessities like heating/electric and also an increase in the personal allowance as a cocktail of measures would help the poorest proportionately far more than anyone else.
That's not to say that a few teachers, nurses and social workers wouldn't get a well earned several hundred quid tax break and their cost of living reduced by a few hundred quid a year in the cross fire but to me that's not exactly the end of the world. They would then spend that money on some minor frivolities such as replacing their unreliable and aged cars and again a byproduct being the reigniting of the motor industry that's on life support (and maybe a few jobs in the process).
Likewise it depends on the charity. I'm not religious but giving to my local church, for them to distribute food and presents over Christmas to the poorest children in my local area is far more direct and efficient than any governmental policy in my view. The difference is I get to research the charities I give to and give accordingly; I don't get to research whether my tax goes to subsiding millionaires kids to read politics at Oxford or subsidising the healthcare of the wealthiest in society.
To be absolutely clear: no I do not believe that increasing the personal allowance without any other measures is the most efficient means of benefiting the poorest. As I've alluded to my preferred taxation system doesn't even have a personal allowance (I don't benefit from the PA anyway so I'm unsure how this policy would in any way be seen as me caring about myself over society).
Either way whilst I originally enjoyed the back and forth (or maybe left and right?) and in the absence of the inconsistencies in your argument being acknowledged or addressed; in tandem with your righteous (and incorrect) moralisations I think after a busy week we're best to agree to disagree.
Here's hoping for a good win tomorrow to redress the balance between too much time in current events and not enough time in the football forum.
zombie Neoliberalism it is then.
Things can only get better.........um.....
Liam Fox being lined up as Britain's candidate to lead World Trade Organisation
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ation/ar-BB15OJvT?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout
Liam Fox being lined up as Britain's candidate to lead World Trade Organisation
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ation/ar-BB15OJvT?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout
Actually I had some dealings with Liam Fox via UK Export Finance - I certainly don't agree with his brexit / world view but actually having dealt with hundreds of politicians through UKEF hes certainly in the top handful in terms of who I would say added some real benefit to the UKEF process - wouldn't want to go for a pint with the chap but id say hes beyond competent and we could do a hell of a lot worse
Have to disagree, he's a total fecking cnut.
A total fecking corrupt cnut.
meh - dont know how closely you have worked with him and im not going to say i found him charming, or friendly or that i agreed with much of his politics - but he was pretty efficient and understood his brief pretty well and directed government support to help business well
If that is the case, why isn't he leader/PM? Anyone know? God knows, we could do with someone more competent in charge.
It is often the case, for whatever reason, that when someone has had occasion to meet someone relatively famous they tend to take their side. As if to not take their side would be to criticise themselves. For example, I'd say it's quite obvious that the other poster hasn't actually worked with him and your ignorance is sligthly disingenuous.
Why would anyone need to have worked with him? The corruption of his previous work is a matter of extensive public record. The man should be in jail.
Former Caf member Alistair said that Piers Morgan was very kind to him. Then again, they're both Arsenal fans, so maybe Piers was on his best behaviour.
I have not worked with him but his tenure as Trade Secretary was hardly stellar to put it mildly and he was, if memory serves, specifically described as incompetent by the EU regarding Brexit trade negotiations and preparedness. Not exactly comforting.
because until I actually saw him at close quarters negotiating abroad I didnt realise that he had another side to him
I mean giggs was doing the dirty on his brother - does not mean he wasnt a good footballer
and dr fox would be pretty low on the list of semi famous people ive worked with
I don't doubt he's good at various aspects of business. That isn't really the point. I'm willing to assume that many high level cabinet ministers past and present aren't completely useless. The problem here is that Liam Fox shouldn't be allowed to serve in any such public capacity owing to his past indiscretions. Unless that capacity is serving time in a public institution.
Case closedFormer Caf member Alistair said that Piers Morgan was very kind to him. Then again, they're both Arsenal fans, so maybe Piers was on his best behaviour.
I wonder disingenuously: could it be that he gets so many prestigious jobs because he's (allegedly) amenable to corruption?
*whistles*
*whistles*
How he comes across in public, is that he has very little clue as to what he's talking about. Slightly worrying is if you consider him one of the top handful of politicians you've dealt with, what does that say for the rest of them and secondly he has been replaced by someone who seems to know even less of what they're talking about in Liz Truss.
Boris Johnson and Theresa May ignored claims the Kremlin had a “likely hold” over Donald Trump and may have covertly funded Brexit, Christopher Steele alleges in secret evidence given to MPs who drew up the Russia report
(Guardian)
(Guardian)
So is this what the Russian report might contain?
I wouldn't lend too much support to this Russia theory. The conservative party and every major national newspaper have overtly funded a British campaign to undermine the European Union for decades. The BBC even joined in on the act in the eve before the referendum. If national security were the issue at hand then Steele is saying that every major Tory since Thatcher as well as most British newspapers have been or are threats to British national security. I'd agree with that but I doubt it's the point he's actually making.