Mailwatch(ed) Forum

You could class E sports as Mickey Mouse but the sector is worth billions.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:41 pm The latest seems to be to replace 'number' with 'arithmetic' and 'shape' with 'geometry'.

Umm...

They aren't the same thing. except to the ignorant.

>edit<
These pronouncements are designed to chime with Tory party members. What ignorant cunts they must be. I despise them.

That's actually an old tweet from Truss. I dimly recall her positioning herself as some sort of expert in maths. Maybe she sniffed an opportunity with Gove being seen as the words guy.

I expect she genuinely thought teachers had to say "shape" because it would hurt feelings if they said "geometry".

She's giving Dorries a run for her money.

I expect she genuinely thought teachers had to say "shape" because it would hurt feelings if they said "geometry".

Stewart Lee’s gran; “Everyone has to wear a hard hat these days so we don’t offend Muslims.”

Absolutely mad. By this logic, pensioners, children, the low paid aren't doing the right thing.

You've not been paying attention, Tubbz. It was Osborn who started all this...

Oh. it's an old enough theme. But it's "brave" to suggest that as a solution to energy price rises. Not least because a lot of the Tory base would be really shat on if she actually did this.

True, the 'efficiency savings' thing is going from strength to strength.

Did you realise that 2022 is the year of Soylent Green?

As ever, law of the ridiculous reverse applies. Nobody would say they were on the side of lazy bastards doing the wrong thing.

I'm getting a little irritated with the way in which Truss keeps saying she believes in tax cuts rather than 'handouts'. Surely by using such terminology she is stigmatising people on low incomes who need help with energy bills or the cost of living. My dad is now 82 he worked from being 15 until he retired on his 65th birthday if he needs help with his energy bills does Truss really begrudge him getting assistance from the state?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Truss's main advisers used to work at the Adam Smith institute and this seems to be reflected in many of her policy proposals. The Adam Smith Institute would certainly use language like 'handouts' when talking about giving the government giving financial assistance to people on low incomes.

satnav wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:29 pm ...does Truss really begrudge him getting assistance from the state?

Of course she does. All Tories do.

The tories ultimately want the U.K. electoral system coupled to the US government system. A biased method to get into power, and then when you’re there you do precisely fuck all to help anyone and then go off and have jollies in tanks and the like.

They want it back to the days that if you can’t pay, you die, and it’s your problem.

It would appear that, out in the shires, the two candidates on offer are regarded as being even more shit than Johnson

As Conservative party members filed into the latest leadership hustings at a baking hot Cheltenham racecourse, very few among this important electorate seemed enthused by the two-way race.

Neither of the runners – foreign secretary Liz Truss nor ex-chancellor Rishi Sunak – excited much Tory passion, nor seemed the subject of heavy betting. Some of those who attended, and who will decide the identity of the new prime minister, suggested they had come along out of duty, to choose the least worst option on offer...

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -liz-truss

Yug wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:01 pm It would appear that, out in the shires, the two candidates on offer are regarded as being even more shit than Johnson .

Some of those who attended, and who will decide the identity of the new prime minister, suggested they had come along out of duty, to choose the least worst option on offer...

Ideed. Which begs the question: What the FUCK were Tory MPs thinking? They could have had the (sort of) compassionate Conservative Tom Tugenhadt, or even the dull but competent Jeremy Hunt. Instead they've all but sewn it up for the simply appalling Truss.

"Who is most likely to give me a job?", I think.

Is anyone even listening anymore?

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:32 pm Ideed. Which begs the question: What the FUCK were Tory MPs thinking?

I suspect they were thinking* “this leader is going to lose to Starmer bar a miracle, be out on their arse and someone else in new in a matter of months. I’d like a shout at a job in their comeback outfit. And maybe a go at PM when we’re heading back to power. I’ll pick the biggest loser.”

*of course, there’s another cohort who are barely capable of walking and talking simultaneously, so they probably think they genuinely backed a winner.

*of course, there’s another cohort who are barely capable of walking and talking simultaneously, so they probably think they genuinely backed a winner

A bloody big one, is there anyone of even Cameron’s mid rank calibre on the backbenches that could pull the Tories back to sanity land?

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:50 pm A bloody big one, is there anyone of even Cameron’s mid rank calibre on the backbenches that could pull the Tories back to sanity land?

If there is, they’re keeping very quiet. Possibly because if they got in, they’d know they had very little talent to form a shadow cabinet with as well as a significant number of backbenchers who are, to put it as kindly as I can, fucking deranged arseholes who’d be happy living in a terrifying mash-up of Edwardian approaches to health and social care, Prudish Victorian opinions on sexuality, morality and women’s rights, a 1980s full-blooded American Psycho approach to business and work and a 1984 level of social control.

I honestly think that Gove may be the only surviving relic of that age who hasn't been PM or put himself up for the role.

Obviously, he's out of a job now, but that was Johnson throwing a strop. Could be interesting to see if he gets brought back.