RugbyRebels

The random number generator would be far less likely to reward corruption with a peerage

We are however fast closing on 5000 lorries having lost access to the continent, over 3000 lorries already stuck in Kent, and many more not having set off or soon to join the queue. Those lorries will be provided with a portaloo and a cereal bar in the run up to Christmas, and only because it is Christmas. That's not each, that's one for the lot and the strongest will win out

Digby wrote:We are however fast closing on 5000 lorries having lost access to the continent, over 3000 lorries already stuck in Kent, and many more not having set off or soon to join the queue. Those lorries will be provided with a portaloo and a cereal bar in the run up to Christmas, and only because it is Christmas. That's not each, that's one for the lot and the strongest will win out

That’s why my trucker friend got the f out of Gotham and is currently sunning it up in the Maldives.

Digby wrote:We are however fast closing on 5000 lorries having lost access to the continent, over 3000 lorries already stuck in Kent, and many more not having set off or soon to join the queue. Those lorries will be provided with a portaloo and a cereal bar in the run up to Christmas, and only because it is Christmas. That's not each, that's one for the lot and the strongest will win out

Yes, but the billionaire press will blame the EU for this first.

At most , eventually, they might blame Boris, if they completely give up on him.

But they'll never blame the Tories for it, they'll just demand a new Tory leader.

That arsehole Blair got Murdoch's support because he was able to match the Conservatives policy for policy, but that was 90s Tory, quite a different vintage. No Labour leader could do that now (wherever on the left Starmer reveals himself to be).

I'd have taken a plan for giving the truckers some food and a place to wash and shit. Having grand plans for covering great distances seems pointless when you can't even tie your shoelaces never mind heading off to walk 500 miles and then 500 more.

Edit. - And I quite liked Blair, it was just all his actual policies which seemed a little odd to me

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:We are however fast closing on 5000 lorries having lost access to the continent, over 3000 lorries already stuck in Kent, and many more not having set off or soon to join the queue. Those lorries will be provided with a portaloo and a cereal bar in the run up to Christmas, and only because it is Christmas. That's not each, that's one for the lot and the strongest will win out

That’s why my trucker friend got the f out of Gotham and is currently sunning it up in the Maldives.

What would make that legendary is if his family is waiting for him in Poland and he's told them he's stuck in Kent

Sturgeon in with her own Agent Cummings moment in the lead up to Christmas, given it's not as bad and she hasn't daftly tried to defend it she's likely to get away with it (as oddly did Dom). But it does speak to why it's so hard to stop the spread of a pandemic

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:We are however fast closing on 5000 lorries having lost access to the continent, over 3000 lorries already stuck in Kent, and many more not having set off or soon to join the queue. Those lorries will be provided with a portaloo and a cereal bar in the run up to Christmas, and only because it is Christmas. That's not each, that's one for the lot and the strongest will win out

That’s why my trucker friend got the f out of Gotham and is currently sunning it up in the Maldives.

What would make that legendary is if his family is waiting for him in Poland and he's told them he's stuck in Kent

lol.

He's there with them and is from Romania, not Poland

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
That’s why my trucker friend got the f out of Gotham and is currently sunning it up in the Maldives.

What would make that legendary is if his family is waiting for him in Poland and he's told them he's stuck in Kent

lol.

He's there with them and is from Romania, not Poland

bloody Romanians, and on the off chance you ever speak to any please do convey my dismissiveness

Hey, make sure you do your best to get Boris Johnson is a Fucking Cunt by The Kunts to no. 1 on the charts.

“But Sunak is instead pursuing the path of his predecessor George Osborne. As the Resolution Foundation has charted, the Chancellor’s plan to cut Universal Credit payments (which were increased early in the crisis) would cost six million households £1,040 a year, with the bottom fifth losing seven per cent of their disposable incomes. Unemployment support would fall to its lowest real-terms level since 1990-91, and its lowest ever relative to average earnings.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... ld-now-end

I realise that’s from ages ago now, but I hadn’t seen it.

Mikey Brown wrote:“But Sunak is instead pursuing the path of his predecessor George Osborne. As the Resolution Foundation has charted, the Chancellor’s plan to cut Universal Credit payments (which were increased early in the crisis) would cost six million households £1,040 a year, with the bottom fifth losing seven per cent of their disposable incomes. Unemployment support would fall to its lowest real-terms level since 1990-91, and its lowest ever relative to average earnings.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... ld-now-end

Sounds like it's all going to plan.

I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

Digby wrote:I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

Do you have a view as to why this government (whether under May or Johnson) has done nothing, 3.5 years after the fire?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

Do you have a view as to why this government (whether under May or Johnson) has done nothing, 3.5 years after the fire?

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

Do you have a view as to why this government (whether under May or Johnson) has done nothing, 3.5 years after the fire?

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Do you have a view as to why this government (whether under May or Johnson) has done nothing, 3.5 years after the fire?

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

I think this is a bad scenario to map class sympathies atop. Those stuck in various situations from unsafe housing to financial problems arising from this go across the earnings spectrum. I think you might ascribe some traditional idea here of penny pinching in terms of a government not wanting to pay out for what in large part is its own failings around building regs and, proper standards in inspections of buildings and materials coming through the supply chain, and not considering how the green agenda has been negatively impacting at times, but you get that with all governments whether left or right leaning

We keep getting the idea brought up this is a penalty on the poor, and certainly Grenfell didn't house the richest but (a) they spent a lot of money on Grenfell and it turns out that they spent it badly was more a problem than there was no investment and (b) the situation whilst likely impacting a higher % of low earners goes well beyond that across the various class divides.

This is just a bad situation brought on by years of neglect and cutting corners in public and private orgs that has been horrifically mismanaged since we got an horrific demonstration as to why more attention should have been paid from a long time back. And it's a bad situation which affects buildings, and buildings house more than just poor people, rich people have been known to live in them too. Had they addressed this situation it should have been to address it for everyone caught up in the situation, but they've failed across the board, it's not like they've addressed it where there are rich people and ignored it just for low(er) earners.

It’s also worth pointing out that the governments cladding deviation really fucks over a lot of young professionals who bought flats in the east end under the past buy schemes.

My sister’s flat, for example, is looking likely to lose most of its value, really ending her plans with that place.

And these young professionals used to be Tory voters.

​Parts of Scotland hit -22* overnight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-56022387

Meanwhile, in Scotland, apparently, poor people still need to eat:

Stom wrote:It’s also worth pointing out that the governments cladding deviation really fucks over a lot of young professionals who bought flats in the east end under the past buy schemes.

My sister’s flat, for example, is looking likely to lose most of its value, really ending her plans with that place.

And these young professionals used to be Tory voters.

What's the cladding deviation? Is that the historic divergence from acceptable standards? And if so it'd be worth keeping in mind cladding is very likely a big problem but still a minority problem in the whole picture

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:It’s also worth pointing out that the governments cladding deviation really fucks over a lot of young professionals who bought flats in the east end under the past buy schemes.

My sister’s flat, for example, is looking likely to lose most of its value, really ending her plans with that place.

And these young professionals used to be Tory voters.

What's the cladding deviation? Is that the historic divergence from acceptable standards? And if so it'd be worth keeping in mind cladding is very likely a big problem but still a minority problem in the whole picture

Lol, phone autocorrected from decision...

Basically, all flats, including 3-5 story short-rises popular in the part-buy schemes, need to get some certificate about cladding, even though this wouldn't effect them. And the owner-tennants need to sort it out themselves, not the developers, because, of course, it's the poor developers who need looking after here.