I have you down as a member of the North London Intellectual elite, Strolls
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I have you down as a member of the North London Intellectual elite, Strolls
They’ll just put a negative story about a black footballer who has done nothing wrong on the front page instead.
But compared to Johnson and Mogg who were born into it and whose decisions effect the lives of millions... please you’re being a little silly.
Not sure Bale has said vote for me as Charlie Austin is part of the evil elite.
Ah, the shopping venue of choice for all liberal elitists.
metropolitan liberal elite if you please
North-West London if you don't mind.
As for intellectuaI, I'd say I was smarter than some I can think of.
Jacob Rees-Mogg for example.
Neither Boris nor Mogg had parents who were politicians. And, as I've already said and you ignored, Grandpa would have had the same power and also came from a well to do middle class family.
Boris Johnson announces plans to legalise dog noncing on the first Tuesday of every month.
Conservatives 48% (+4)
Cummings v Johnson
I have no idea who is worse, but defending one against the other is like saying ‘yeah, this bloke’s a *****, but the other one is a more aggressive *****’. You end up endorsing *****philia without thinking about it.
For balance, I’d say the same about Corbyn v Watson (remember him? Yeah me neither), Sturgeon v Salmond or Ed Davey (took me five minutes to remember him) v the invisible man. Or anyone else where the cop out of moral relativism is used to excuse crap, corrupt, self serving behaviour.
I have no idea who is worse, but defending one against the other is like saying ‘yeah, this bloke’s a *****, but the other one is a more aggressive *****’. You end up endorsing *****philia without thinking about it.
For balance, I’d say the same about Corbyn v Watson (remember him? Yeah me neither), Sturgeon v Salmond or Ed Davey (took me five minutes to remember him) v the invisible man. Or anyone else where the cop out of moral relativism is used to excuse crap, corrupt, self serving behaviour.
Are we talking about Jeremy Corbyn? Grew up living in 17th century Yew Tree Manor, then attended preparatory school before attending private school as a day student? Later an Islington resident who managed to keep his job for over 30 years and somehow managed a promotion to leader of the opposition despite being completely useless?
I'd say he was already an elite before losing two elections.
Sorry, no intention of engaging in the wider debate. Just didn't want to miss out on an opportunity to remind everyone that Corbyn is as hypocritical as he is useless.
Sorry mate, he's not on 21 million a year. Probably not even on a million. He's a working class man and wouldn't go a miss from barry in the coalmine
Cummings and Johnson are both lying ****s, plainly. It doesn't matter which is the bigger lying ****, but watching them fight to the death over it will be a fine spectacle.
Unforgivable. Lock him up. Chuck Johnson in with him. Bring back, erm, someone!
Douglas Murray
Carrie Symonds and the First Girlfriend problem
From magazine issue: 1 May 2021
Getty Images
Text settings
CommentsShare
One of the least attractive aspects of American politics is epitomised in the ‘Office of the First Lady’. The office in the East Wing of the White House has grown under consecutive presidents and, depending on the incumbent’s ambitions, can include policy and legislative initiatives. All emanate from a person solely in place because some years earlier they were lucky enough — or otherwise — to marry a person who became president. It all makes America less like a democracy, more like a court, with the inevitable overspill of ‘First Children’ and more.
By convention this country has been spared that problem. Prime-ministerial spouses can be strong figures in their own right, but all have sought to play down any hint that they are attempting to influence government. Yet in the position of First Girlfriend we are now suffering precisely America’s problem and more. There is no getting around the fact that there is a problem with Carrie Symonds, which it is probably best to have out now.
In 2019 our Prime Minister came in with a significant and clear mandate. Covid has added significantly to his workload. But for many of us he seemed the perfect — even the only — man for the hour. Yet as that hour has gone on, problems of his own creation keep appearing. Too many of them originate from the sway — even terror — his younger companion seems to exert over him.
Carrie Symonds herself is a perfectly nice, intelligent person who successfully worked her way through Conservative campaign headquarters. But she is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because she does not favour them. And there are others — principally green issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy her. The feeling is growing that the First Girlfriend wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
James Forsyth
The nightmare: Boris’s battles are just beginning
This is not in itself surprising. It seems no Carrie-related issue is ever too minor to distract the PM. Last year she made him stop a Cobra meeting at the height of the Covid crisis. The urgent cause was her demand that the PM make an official complaint to the Times newspaper over a story claiming that Carrie’s affections for the couple’s Jack Russell, Dilyn, had cooled in the year since the couple adopted him.
This exhibited a crazy set of priorities, as the PM finally realised. But anyone who even identifies this should expect one of Carrie’s court defenders to come for them. Earlier this year, Katie Hind performed this role in the Mail on Sunday. There Hind incorrectly asserted that Carrie’s critics were not only all male but also ‘old-school’ and ‘white’. They are also apparently ‘sexist old Tory dinosaurs’ who are ‘afraid of intelligent women’. Similar claims have been made by the former sport minister Tracey Crouch and Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, who has claimed that the problem is that ‘jealous little men feel threatened by intelligent women’. What none of these defenders ever takes into account is the possibility that any concerns might rather be prompted by the fact of a person with no mandate to make policy and personnel decisions constantly being permitted to make them.
Whenever they battle for Carrie, her friends inadvertently give this away. Hind berated Carrie’s male critics for knowing ‘only too well that she doesn’t have a voice to respond. Nor does her beloved dog Dilyn’. The second part of this is undoubtedly true. Dilyn does not have a voice because he is a dog, and not even sexist old Tory dinosaurs can be blamed for that. But the giveaway came here: ‘Carrie’s crime is quite clear — she got in the way of the Brexit Boys who thought they could have it all their way.’
Now you may applaud the success of Carrie getting Cummings and co out of her way or you may deprecate it. But it hardly refutes the charge that Carrie is meddling where she should not. It actually celebrates the fact.
Still, the trap laid by Carrie and her defenders is clear. Say that Carrie has gained political influence only because of who her boyfriend is, and you will be accused of being envious of powerful, successful women who have made it in their own right. ‘Carrie is an expert in politics,’ one well-briefed source recently told the media. And she may well be. But that is not why she is sleeping in No. 10.
In the UK anyone who wishes to have political power should run for elected office. The emergent Office of First Lady is clearly a source of tension in Downing Street, and is already responsible for an unprecedented number of interventions in policy areas that affect our country. We hear nothing from the Prime Minister on issues he was elected on, and far too much on ones that Carrie happens to favour. The Prime Minister may have need of a First Girlfriend, but the country does not.
Carrie Symonds and the First Girlfriend problem
From magazine issue: 1 May 2021
You must log in or register to see images
Getty Images
Text settings
CommentsShare
One of the least attractive aspects of American politics is epitomised in the ‘Office of the First Lady’. The office in the East Wing of the White House has grown under consecutive presidents and, depending on the incumbent’s ambitions, can include policy and legislative initiatives. All emanate from a person solely in place because some years earlier they were lucky enough — or otherwise — to marry a person who became president. It all makes America less like a democracy, more like a court, with the inevitable overspill of ‘First Children’ and more.
By convention this country has been spared that problem. Prime-ministerial spouses can be strong figures in their own right, but all have sought to play down any hint that they are attempting to influence government. Yet in the position of First Girlfriend we are now suffering precisely America’s problem and more. There is no getting around the fact that there is a problem with Carrie Symonds, which it is probably best to have out now.
In 2019 our Prime Minister came in with a significant and clear mandate. Covid has added significantly to his workload. But for many of us he seemed the perfect — even the only — man for the hour. Yet as that hour has gone on, problems of his own creation keep appearing. Too many of them originate from the sway — even terror — his younger companion seems to exert over him.
Carrie Symonds herself is a perfectly nice, intelligent person who successfully worked her way through Conservative campaign headquarters. But she is having too great an impact on the course of government. There are issues the Prime Minister avoids because she does not favour them. And there are others — principally green issues — which he appears to adopt to satisfy her. The feeling is growing that the First Girlfriend wants political power without the trouble of having to run for office, and to wield it without any resulting criticism. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
James Forsyth
The nightmare: Boris’s battles are just beginning
You must log in or register to see images
This is not in itself surprising. It seems no Carrie-related issue is ever too minor to distract the PM. Last year she made him stop a Cobra meeting at the height of the Covid crisis. The urgent cause was her demand that the PM make an official complaint to the Times newspaper over a story claiming that Carrie’s affections for the couple’s Jack Russell, Dilyn, had cooled in the year since the couple adopted him.
This exhibited a crazy set of priorities, as the PM finally realised. But anyone who even identifies this should expect one of Carrie’s court defenders to come for them. Earlier this year, Katie Hind performed this role in the Mail on Sunday. There Hind incorrectly asserted that Carrie’s critics were not only all male but also ‘old-school’ and ‘white’. They are also apparently ‘sexist old Tory dinosaurs’ who are ‘afraid of intelligent women’. Similar claims have been made by the former sport minister Tracey Crouch and Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, who has claimed that the problem is that ‘jealous little men feel threatened by intelligent women’. What none of these defenders ever takes into account is the possibility that any concerns might rather be prompted by the fact of a person with no mandate to make policy and personnel decisions constantly being permitted to make them.
Whenever they battle for Carrie, her friends inadvertently give this away. Hind berated Carrie’s male critics for knowing ‘only too well that she doesn’t have a voice to respond. Nor does her beloved dog Dilyn’. The second part of this is undoubtedly true. Dilyn does not have a voice because he is a dog, and not even sexist old Tory dinosaurs can be blamed for that. But the giveaway came here: ‘Carrie’s crime is quite clear — she got in the way of the Brexit Boys who thought they could have it all their way.’
Now you may applaud the success of Carrie getting Cummings and co out of her way or you may deprecate it. But it hardly refutes the charge that Carrie is meddling where she should not. It actually celebrates the fact.
Still, the trap laid by Carrie and her defenders is clear. Say that Carrie has gained political influence only because of who her boyfriend is, and you will be accused of being envious of powerful, successful women who have made it in their own right. ‘Carrie is an expert in politics,’ one well-briefed source recently told the media. And she may well be. But that is not why she is sleeping in No. 10.
In the UK anyone who wishes to have political power should run for elected office. The emergent Office of First Lady is clearly a source of tension in Downing Street, and is already responsible for an unprecedented number of interventions in policy areas that affect our country. We hear nothing from the Prime Minister on issues he was elected on, and far too much on ones that Carrie happens to favour. The Prime Minister may have need of a First Girlfriend, but the country does not.
I hope you are not talking about ‘Champagne Jezza’ with his little lockdown parties. Remember with Jezza ‘it’s for the many not the Jew’. If he was PM he would have painted the town red... in more ways than one. Unelectable.