[Politics] The Right Honourable Suella Braverman. KC MP **Sacked 13/11**

[Stato]

As an old lefty, sorry to disagree. I don't think there is any evidence that 'public school charm' can be learned. With a different accent the supreme self belief manifests itself across society. One immediate example, a bloke I interviewed for doing my extension had it (partly the reason we went elsewhere). And there are plenty who were brutalized by public school. No.....

My theory is that those who have acquired wealth and perhaps some position, from which they create protection for their offspring, such as Johnson's dad, his dad, and Cameron's forbears likewise, have the genes that favour this type of success. Yes a lot of them end up sending their kids to public school. But they are the chicken and the public schools are merely the nests, not the eggs.

They are of a class because the class is created by them (or rather their forebears) to nurture their type.

I am not saying that the ruling classes are born to a station. I am a biologists, not a f***ing conservative. No, I mean that all living things survive because their genes allow them to thrive, and in the complex human world a great deal of niche characteristics facilitate (reproductive and societal) success. It used to simply be physical strength and ruthlessness that made you a prince or duke. Now (by now I mean in the last 300 years) having charm, no conscience and a modicum of cunning are all you need to become a baronet, buy a country pile and create a dynasty.

You don't have to ponce about, like the cock Mogg, in a top hat in order to ram the apparent superiority home, but on occasions it may help.

So the system (of privilege) has been created by those who benefit from it, because they can (and must). Other systems (such as the Welfare State, and the provision of opportunity to all, including oiks like myself, in the 1970s) are of course available. Socialism being the most prominent.

But don't expect those whose line has benefitted from the status quo to be clamoring for change any time soon. This is where the old labour idea, 'we are he masters now', gains traction. It is a natural goal to become the master when you are simply the servant. I would personally prefer to be a colleague rather than a master, but hey ho, call me a poof.

Be honest, people. You vote for self interest. This includes the notion of altruism being generally good (if you consider it would be generally good for yourself). I vote left because I feel more comfortable knowing that I am more likely to mix with and be judged by people more like me who, I like to tell myself, are more likely to be fair and collegiate. Were my personality different, and I found myself mainly drawn to the strong, self-made or well-established, the independent and, yes, wealthy, I may favour the right. Except....except they can be such ****s. Why send refugees to Rwanda? That is just ****ish.

No, I will stick with what I prefer, I think.

I'm not sure that we were disagreeing. More that you were providing nuance to my ham-fisted explanation of outcome.

Yes, the extreme self belief is more widespread these days, but absence of the accent makes it easier to recognise the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Logically, we should vote for self interest, but someone with supreme self confidence will have a better chance of persuading us otherwise.

The only UK Prime minister during my lifetime that I have actually liked was Gordon Brown. He came over as worried, anxious, serious, a bit dour and depressed. That to me is the absolutely correct response to being put in a position where your decisions can mean life and death for people who you will never meet. He seemed a decent honorable man trying to do an impossible job. Unfortunately most other people seem to prefer someone who pretends that there will be sunlit uplands and honey for tea. We seem to elect far more Tiggers than Eyeores.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Fancy that.....

Don't really like doing it H, but there's a really limited market for reading a thousand word treatise of somebody's personal take on a subject - any subject - on a message board - any message board. No offense x

 

[Stato]

Don't really like doing it H, but there's a really limited market for reading a thousand word treatise of somebody's personal take on a subject - any subject - on a message board - any message board. No offense x

You're right, but it's each to their own. I'm drawn to the longer responses, but then I remember sympathising with Stewart Lee, when he was being nagged by Richard Herring in an interview to join Twitter in the early days and responded: 'But there's nothing I want to say that's less than 140 characters'.

 

[BLOCK F]

Because it's a specific type of self belief that seems unique to those who have been through the higher echelons of the British public school system, one of the life advantages that parents actually pay these 'charities' to give their offspring. Its a superficial charming confidence that can disarm and mask a belief in innate superiority. Had Boris Johnson not had it, he would never have got anywhere near public office. He was a proven liar many times over, but he didn't see consequences nor have to consider the fall out from his actions because he had been taught from a very early age that he was one of what Tom Wolfe called the 'Masters of the Universe' and that whatever was good for him, would be good for the world in general.

For Cameron it meant that he was quite willing to gamble the country's economic future, the British Union and peace in Northern Ireland to try to solve an internal wrangle in the Conservative Party - Like the arrogant fools who sent the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death and those who sent a generation to their deaths in the Somme, like those who messed up in Suez, or carved up continents to benefit them and their old school friends, he never considered that he may lose, because he'd been taught to believe in his own invincibility. He and his class knew what was best and the people whose lives they treated as currency just didn't matter because they were the pawns not the kings:

That's why public school arrogance. Those of us taught at comprehensives will generally always have doubt. Those who've been through that education system are blessed with the mistaken self belief that they are the best of us and can be trusted to make the decisions that are best for nations. I say blessed, because they can be sure that even if their decisions are catstrophiacally wrong, it will be others that face the worst of the consequences.

What a sweeping generalisation about many decent people who went to public school. Not all of us are like Boris Johnson, in fact I would suggest very few are, thankfully. I have no mistaken self belief that I am ‘better’ than my fellow non privately educated citizens and I would suggest that goes for the huge majority of people who were privately educated. I left school almost 60 years ago and of those former friends and acquaintances that I know about, most of them have led honest law abiding lives away from the spotlight, following a variety of professions and jobs in a diligent and unspectacular manner. In short being decent citizens and contributing to society in many ways, not just acting in their own self interest.
You are way out of line it what you say and have just taken the easy stereotype route to paint a picture that is not really justifiable. Of course there are arrogant shites that went to public school; I can remember one or two or three, just
Ike there were, no doubt, gobby rude working class oiks who went to state school . Nevertheless, the majority of people, wherever they were educated, deserve to be judged by their qualities as human beings and not by their education. Like many, I had no choice as to where I was educated.
For what it is worth, I have no strong feelings about public schools and the day I left my school was one of the best days of my life.

 

[rippleman]

Cameron coming in to work in one of the most senior and influential positions of power in this country, despite not being an elected member of parliament.

What a wonderful system we have in the House of Lords.

The worst part of it all is that he's the most sensible of the lot of them.

I'm not sure that calling for the Brexit referendum when there was no demand for one was "sensible". His "remain" campaign was crap because he was so arrogant that he couldn't conceive of us voting to leave. Then after he lost he vowed to stay on and see the decision through, only to run away a couple of weeks later. He was lobbying for a bent financial firm and profited from it. And he stuck his cock in a pigs mouth (allegedly).

Sensible? Maybe. I prefer incompetent, cowardly and corrupt.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Don't really like doing it H, but there's a really limited market for reading a thousand word treatise of somebody's personal take on a subject - any subject - on a message board - any message board. No offense x

As a long term victim of Britain's public transport, I increasingly find myself drawn towards those posters who'll waste as much of my time as possible.
There's only so much of a train journey that can be spent looking up who's the 3rd most productive left handed opening batter in test matches in the West Indies.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Don't really like doing it H, but there's a really limited market for reading a thousand word treatise of somebody's personal take on a subject - any subject - on a message board - any message board. No offense x

TL;DR

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You're right, but it's each to their own. I'm drawn to the longer responses, but then I remember sympathising with Stewart Lee, when he was being nagged by Richard Herring in an interview to join Twitter in the early days and responded: 'But there's nothing I want to say that's less than 140 characters'.

There used to be an equilevent punk-era saying (re songs) that if it couldn't be said in three minutes then it wasn't worth saying. Same applies here, word-count-wise

 

[BLOCK F]

As an old lefty, sorry to disagree. I don't think there is any evidence that 'public school charm' can be learned. With a different accent the supreme self belief manifests itself across society. One immediate example, a bloke I interviewed for doing my extension had it (partly the reason we went elsewhere). And there are plenty who were brutalized by public school. No.....

My theory is that those who have acquired wealth and perhaps some position, from which they create protection for their offspring, such as Johnson's dad, his dad, and Cameron's forbears likewise, have the genes that favour this type of success. Yes a lot of them end up sending their kids to public school. But they are the chicken and the public schools are merely the nests, not the eggs.

They are of a class because the class is created by them (or rather their forebears) to nurture their type.

I am not saying that the ruling classes are born to a station. I am a biologists, not a f***ing conservative. No, I mean that all living things survive because their genes allow them to thrive, and in the complex human world a great deal of niche characteristics facilitate (reproductive and societal) success. It used to simply be physical strength and ruthlessness that made you a prince or duke. Now (by now I mean in the last 300 years) having charm, no conscience and a modicum of cunning are all you need to become a baronet, buy a country pile and create a dynasty.

You don't have to ponce about, like the cock Mogg, in a top hat in order to ram the apparent superiority home, but on occasions it may help.

So the system (of privilege) has been created by those who benefit from it, because they can (and must). Other systems (such as the Welfare State, and the provision of opportunity to all, including oiks like myself, in the 1970s) are of course available. Socialism being the most prominent.

But don't expect those whose line has benefitted from the status quo to be clamoring for change any time soon. This is where the old labour idea, 'we are he masters now', gains traction. It is a natural goal to become the master when you are simply the servant. I would personally prefer to be a colleague rather than a master, but hey ho, call me a poof.

Be honest, people. You vote for self interest. This includes the notion of altruism being generally good (if you consider it would be generally good for yourself). I vote left because I feel more comfortable knowing that I am more likely to mix with and be judged by people more like me who, I like to tell myself, are more likely to be fair and collegiate. Were my personality different, and I found myself mainly drawn to the strong, self-made or well-established, the independent and, yes, wealthy, I may favour the right. Except....except they can be such ****s. Why send refugees to Rwanda? That is just ****ish.

No, I will stick with what I prefer, I think.

Hi Harry,
I reckon those who favour Rwanda and the like are more likely to be twerps from all sections of the political spectrum, not just Right twerps.

 

[Guinness Boy]

, but hey ho, call me a poof.

Would you like a tall one or a short one?

 

[BLOCK F]

I'm not sure that we were disagreeing. More that you were providing nuance to my ham-fisted explanation of outcome.

Yes, the extreme self belief is more widespread these days, but absence of the accent makes it easier to recognise the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Logically, we should vote for self interest, but someone with supreme self confidence will have a better chance of persuading us otherwise.

The only UK Prime minister during my lifetime that I have actually liked was Gordon Brown. He came over as worried, anxious, serious, a bit dour and depressed. That to me is the absolutely correct response to being put in a position where your decisions can mean life and death for people who you will never meet. He seemed a decent honorable man trying to do an impossible job. Unfortunately most other people seem to prefer someone who pretends that there will be sunlit uplands and honey for tea. We seem to elect far more Tiggers than Eyeores.

I reckon all PMs face an impossible job. At best, let’s say about half the country won’t like/won’t agree/ will hate you. I think Gordon Brown was an honourable man, but perhaps not best suited to being PM.
Out of interest, if you had a choice, who would you favour to be PM?

 

[Gabbiano]

I'm not sure that calling for the Brexit referendum when there was no demand for one was "sensible". His "remain" campaign was crap because he was so arrogant that he couldn't conceive of us voting to leave. Then after he lost he vowed to stay on and see the decision through, only to run away a couple of weeks later. He was lobbying for a bent financial firm and profited from it. And he stuck his cock in a pigs mouth (allegedly).

Sensible? Maybe. I prefer incompetent, cowardly and corrupt.

Suggesting that Cameron is more sensible than Braverman, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and the current tranche of far right morons does not equal an endorsement of Cameron's own failures.

Just a comment on the extreme depths we have plummeted to in the years since his resignation.

 

[Stato]

What a sweeping generalisation about many decent people who went to public school. Not all of us are like Boris Johnson, in fact I would suggest very few are, thankfully. I have no mistaken self belief that I am ‘better’ than my fellow non privately educated citizens and I would suggest that goes for the huge majority of people who were privately educated. I left school almost 60 years ago and of those former friends and acquaintances that I know about, most of them have led honest law abiding lives away from the spotlight, following a variety of professions and jobs in a diligent and unspectacular manner. In short being decent citizens and contributing to society in many ways, not just acting in their own self interest.
You are way out of line it what you say and have just taken the easy stereotype route to paint a picture that is not really justifiable. Of course there are arrogant shites that went to public school; I can remember one or two or three, just
Ike there were, no doubt, gobby rude working class oiks who went to state school . Nevertheless, the majority of people, wherever they were educated, deserve to be judged by their qualities as human beings and not by their education. Like many, I had no choice as to where I was educated.
For what it is worth, I have no strong feelings about public schools and the day I left my school was one of the best days of my life.

Of course I was generalising and of course I'm not talking about everybody who ever got sent to a private school. @Harry Wilson's tackle has put it better than I. I'm talking about an obvious sense of entitlement held by some who come out of Eton, Harrow, etc. with the expectation that they are born to rule. It's far more than just a public school education, but a public school education is a big part of it. It's not just money, it's class, a club that excludes those not born into it. No offence intended to you, and I would be just as harsh on the different failings of some of the arses that were at my own overstretched and underfunded eighties comprehensive school. However, as there's not much of a pipeline from there to Number 10, none of them are ruining the country and upon leaving, if I avoided the right pubs, my life was little impacted upon by them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Would you like a tall one or a short one?

Tall please.

I should probably edit the florid nicompoopery.

 

[Bob!]

Won't happen

Though the constituency boundaries here are changing for the next election so that is my one little glimmer of hope that she might be voted out. Other than that, it's all blue here unfortunately.

Last week I saw an opinion poll on Twitter conducted in Fareham suggesting she's got 61% of the vote.

It is unbelievable how thick some people are.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hi Harry,
I reckon those who favour Rwanda and the like are more likely to be twerps from all sections of the political spectrum, not just Right twerps.

Well....I suppose there are some 'kick them out' merchants on the left. But we are supposedly all terrorist-loving wokerati, over here, so the probability is likely to be lower than elsewhere on the political speculum. I mean spectrum.

 

[Stato]

I reckon all PMs face an impossible job. At best, let’s say about half the country won’t like/won’t agree/ will hate you. I think Gordon Brown was an honourable man, but perhaps not best suited to being PM.
Out of interest, if you had a choice, who would you favour to be PM?

Of the ones on offer, I'll take Starmer. I don't agree with him on everything, but then none of us agree on everything and the problem with politics in the social media age seems to be that nobody will ever admit that whoever is in charge will have to make some compromise not only with both wings of their own party, but also with external forces and the half of the electorate that don't support them. Without the power to change the international economic system, the best a national government can be expected to do is manage their own sphere in a competent and equitable way and I'm drawn to evidence based policy making as a means to this end. Starmer's more of a technocrat that an inspirational leader, but he strikes me as someone who would be better at doing the job than he would be at campaiging to get the job. He's nearly as miserable as GB, which also helps.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Don't really like doing it H, but there's a really limited market for reading a thousand word treatise of somebody's personal take on a subject - any subject - on a message board - any message board. No offense x

It's OK. TL;DR is one of you tropes. I smiled. Possibly tittered.

I bet uncle Jimmy never said that, though

 

[Guinness Boy]

Of the ones on offer, I'll take Starmer. I don't agree with him on everything, but then none of us agree on everything and the problem with politics in the social media age seems to be that nobody will ever admit that whoever is in charge will have to make some compromise not only with both wings of their own party, but also with external forces and the half of the electorate that don't support them. Without the power to change the international economic system, the best a national government can be expected to do is manage their own sphere in a competent and equitable way and I'm drawn to evidence based policy making as a means to this end. Starmer's more of a technocrat that an inspirational leader, but he strikes me as someone who would be better at doing the job than he would be at campaiging to get the job. He's nearly as miserable as GB, which also helps.

Oi.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not sure that we were disagreeing. More that you were providing nuance to my ham-fisted explanation of outcome.

Yes, the extreme self belief is more widespread these days, but absence of the accent makes it easier to recognise the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Logically, we should vote for self interest, but someone with supreme self confidence will have a better chance of persuading us otherwise.

The only UK Prime minister during my lifetime that I have actually liked was Gordon Brown. He came over as worried, anxious, serious, a bit dour and depressed. That to me is the absolutely correct response to being put in a position where your decisions can mean life and death for people who you will never meet. He seemed a decent honorable man trying to do an impossible job. Unfortunately most other people seem to prefer someone who pretends that there will be sunlit uplands and honey for tea. We seem to elect far more Tiggers than Eyeores.

I presume you read HGTTG? "Dent, Arthur Dent" and all that. The ruler of the universe was the one bloke among all those in the frame who didn't want the job. He lived in a shed, in the rain, with his cat (called 'The Lord' or somesuch), giving unfathomable advice to those who sought guidance, and pieces of fish to his cat. Not that he saw it as 'his' cat. I've always liked that.

(If only GB hadn't decided that what the people wanted to see was him grinning. <sigh>)