Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
:sunglasses: 50 % ❤ 5.6 % :thumbsup: 5.6 % 😯 5.6 % :grinning: 27.8 % 😟 5.6 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#570695
Although he's gone off the rails completely in the last few years (he's now a "One Nation" rep in the New South Wales parliament) this quote from former Australian Labor leader Mark Latham for me is the go to quote when snivelling shits like Ms. Vine starts playing a "civility" card.
I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness – the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate. Imagine the hide of these people—the old money interests, the conservative think tanks, the Tory MPs and their fellow travellers in the commercial media. They have spent the last 20 years hopping into the unemployed, Aboriginal communities, newly arrived migrants and anyone else at the bottom of the social ladder, and now they want civility. ... For the establishment, civility is a way of preserving the social pecking order. It helps the ruling class to avoid public scrutiny and accountability. It tells working people to accept their lot in life, without challenging the power and privilege of the Tory elite.
lord_kobel, Kreuzberger, Watchman and 1 others liked this
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#570729
Sarah Vine disses her husband.
SARAH VINE: Why every woman will salute Mrs May's true grit in standing up to preening, pompous men

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... s-men.html
Last edited by Big Arnold on Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570772
My wife's take on it was that she was fucking stupid to take the job in the first place and try and fix things when those who fucked it up walked away. "Heat-seeking Doormat" was the phrase used.

I'm sure she gets toasted every night in the Gove household for jumping on that grenade.
By karlt
Membership Days
#570987
MisterMuncher wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:53 pm
My wife's take on it was that she was fucking stupid to take the job in the first place and try and fix things when those who fucked it up walked away. "Heat-seeking Doormat" was the phrase used.

I'm sure she gets toasted every night in the Gove household for jumping on that grenade.
The stupidity started when a referendum was held offering a course of action to which most of Parliament was opposed. It'd be one thing for a pro-Brexit Parliament to hold one to to give such a fundamental change popular legitimacy and reluctantly shelf it if they lost, but this is quite a different thing and it's why it's proved so hard to do - MPs have twin responsibilities to represent their constituents, but also to act in the country's best interests. For a Remainer these two are in conflict and what we see are MPs desperately trying to do both, albeit with "country's best interests' often interpreted through a web of ideologies, party loyalties and indeed party intrigue.

Cameron gambled it'd go the same way as his Referendum bribe to the Lib Dems to cement the coalition. This time the gamble failed and he set in motion an inevitable train wreck.
Abernathy, spoonman liked this
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#571314
SARAH VINE: Yes, Jagger’s an alley cat but I’ve got sympathy for the old devil
Um. Isn't anyone needing heart surgery deserving of some sympathy?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... devil.html
 
By Oblomov
#571335
karlt wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:17 pm
MisterMuncher wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:53 pm
My wife's take on it was that she was fucking stupid to take the job in the first place and try and fix things when those who fucked it up walked away. "Heat-seeking Doormat" was the phrase used.

I'm sure she gets toasted every night in the Gove household for jumping on that grenade.
The stupidity started when a referendum was held offering a course of action to which most of Parliament was opposed. It'd be one thing for a pro-Brexit Parliament to hold one to to give such a fundamental change popular legitimacy and reluctantly shelf it if they lost, but this is quite a different thing and it's why it's proved so hard to do - MPs have twin responsibilities to represent their constituents, but also to act in the country's best interests. For a Remainer these two are in conflict and what we see are MPs desperately trying to do both, albeit with "country's best interests' often interpreted through a web of ideologies, party loyalties and indeed party intrigue.

Cameron gambled it'd go the same way as his Referendum bribe to the Lib Dems to cement the coalition. This time the gamble failed and he set in motion an inevitable train wreck.
What I'm failing to understand with Cameron is it would have been so easy to kick it into the long grass. Accept that the referendum result was the zeitgeist (just about) but then state that it was just advisory and that whilst he would begin moves to withdraw the UK from the EU various things (which we're all familiar with now) need to be addressed first and the arrangements needed to be put into place at least provisionally before a formal withdrawal would happen, at which point you have a mostly final shape of Brexit to present to the public "do we still want to leave for definite and if so, are these terms acceptable?". If its voted down no then back to the negotiating table until it's sorted.

It might have taken years, possibly even decades of mini referendums but at the least all the minutiae of withdrawing would be explained, debated and a hopefully informed public would have made a decisive choice on what they wanted, assuming that the nation hadn't calmed down from nationalistic fervor by that point. A conservative approach from the yanno, party of that very name.

But no, Cameron's gamble didn't pay off leaving him with a bunch of egg over his gammon face so he decided to petulantly fuck off to consult for big oil and credit firms and leave the rest of us to live with the consequence of his rabid lunatic successors.
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#571336
It's the rhetoric of democracy with all the usual weaseling of Cameron. He was so confident, he could say 'this is your decision', the advisory bit was deliberately sidelined, etc. All part of the failings of our democracy: the lack of a written constitution, the lack of complexity in our understandings of the term, the fetishisation of referenda as the utterly frozen 'people's will', the deliberate avoidance of the hardest tension of the whole thing: we absolutely deserve the right to vote, but we're also ignorant fools.
Abernathy liked this
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#571467
Cameron was cornered by reporters the other day and before doing his sidestep and running he explained he didn't speak much on this political meltdown as he didn't want to be an ex-PM backseat driving. Very disingenuous as this isn't a new PM with a new agenda. Because May has no time to have one due to mopping up Cameron's shit. This tosser will probably have the gall to make a political comeback once the waters have calmed.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#575532
With all that's going on Vine still manages to find time to pen the usual bitchy article sneering at women and modern trends. And the basis of her article is "According to John Lewis".

According to John Lewis, more and more couples are turning their backs on formal venues such as churches and hotels, opting instead for alternative ‘farmyard’ weddings in more Instagram-friendly settings such as barns and yurts.

Alternative? Original? Boho? No, just predictably pretentious.




SARAH VINE: Boho brides who get married in farmyards aren’t cool, they’re just big poseurs

Luckily for me, I’m not at that stage in life where I get invited to many weddings. My children are too young and my friends are mostly still on their first marriages.

Which is a blessing, really, because I’m not sure I could cope with wading across a muddy field just to sit on a prickly hay bale watching two people burble New Age platitudes through a cloud of midges.

It appears weddings have changed a lot since I tied the knot. Back then, hats and heels were the order of the day; now it’s wellies and waterproofs.

According to John Lewis, more and more couples are turning their backs on formal venues such as churches and hotels, opting instead for alternative ‘farmyard’ weddings in more Instagram-friendly settings such as barns and yurts.

Out go buttonholes, in come daisy-chains. Out with the church organ, in with the wind-chimes. Abba and champagne? No, it’s acoustic guitar around the fire-pit and craft beer in jam-jars.

And forget booking a room at the local Travelodge: guests will slumber beneath the stars in glamping tents festooned with solar-powered fairy lights.

The bride, meanwhile, will be radiant in billowing clouds of loose-fitting white. Shod in baby-blue Hunter wellies, her hair garlanded in wild flowers, she will be the very vision of rural loveliness.

Like a Pre-Raphaelite princess she will take her place at the woven willow altar, pledging eternal love to her barefoot groom as friends swat away flies and granny contemplates the half-mile trek to the eco-friendly chemical loo.

Alternative? Original? Boho? No, just predictably pretentious.

Of course, all weddings are, to an extent, a cliche. But with a traditional wedding you can blame the worst excesses on convention. At least with a church ceremony you know where you are. Literally.

Getting hitched off-grid in a forest or a field, by contrast, presents your guests with a logistical nightmare.

How are they to know which tree to turn left at, or whether those ominous-looking cows are friendly?

As to the idea that these faux-boho weddings are somehow less uptight and more spontaneous, that’s clearly nonsense. The more laissez-faire they appear on the surface, the more frantic leg-work has gone on behind the scenes.

Your traditional ceremony can be organised with just a few phone calls and a cup of tea with the vicar. A back-to-nature wedding, by contrast, requires military planning.

I once helped a friend organise a forest wedding for her daughter. And let me tell you, transporting 80 guests, assorted druids, food, booze and innumerable floral embellishments to the heart of a Wiltshire wood is a far more costly and time-consuming process than booking the big room at a local hotel.

Hay fever, sunburn, trench foot —these are all very real dangers. As is the prospect of rain.

Yes, a hog roast is a lovely thing on a hot day; but soggy pig is no one’s idea of fun.

And in case you think I’m just being a killjoy, note that as well as doing a roaring trade in outdoor fairy lights (sales up 30 per cent, year on year), John Lewis has also seen a boom in wedding insurance. Successful claims have included a barn that burned down and a bride’s dress ruined by pollen.

You don’t get that at your local register office.




The real question is what the fucking hell has it got to do with Vine what type of wedding women want to have? It's just sneering for sneerings sake, which is often the case with Vine.
  • 1
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 59
The Tories, Generally

https://twitter.com/simonapcliff/status/1197297725[…]

2019 General Election

Here's how you do it, journo's... https://twitter[…]

Newsnight

https://twitter.com/TheIDSmiths/status/11972329610[…]

The LibDems, generally

holds out hope of govt of national unity To be […]