FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Kemi Badenoch Lies About Stanford Pre-Med Grant
Kemi Badenoch Lies About Stanford Pre-Med Grant
Jump to: Newest in thread
It has emerged, as reported in the Guardian, that Kemi Badenoch's claims to have been offered a partial grant to study pre-med at Standford could not be true.
Firstly, there is no such course at Stanford and never was. Secondly, several Stanford admissions officers, including one who worked there at the time the offer was supposedly made, confirmed that they would have offered a full grant in her claimed situation, they would have been extremely unlikely to make such an offer to someone of her age at the time, and indeed no such offers were made to any Nigerian students over that period.
Badenoch's people have not been able to substantiate her claim and are instead trying to dilute it by saying she meant she had had a number of offers from various universities, but unfortunately she repeated the specific Stanford claim in several interviews over several years.
In light of Badenoch's sustained attacks on Rachel Reeves over her lies and exaggerations on her CV in relation to her roles at BoE and HBoS, this shows the Tory leader to be a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Arguably of little significance as the Conservatives continue their slump into insignificance, but they are still His Majesty's Opposition and should be expected to uphold some sort of basic integrity.
Will this hasten Jenrick's ascent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Will this hasten Jenrick's ascent?"
Him too. Signed of a billionaire Tory donors planning application early when jenrick was planning minister to save the donor £40M infastructure levy
Broke the lockdown rules as well
As for Badenock she’s Nigerian a country ranked 140th among the 180 countries on the Transparency International's 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index. Befitting she’s Tory leader
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it."
Baffling to me the things you think are and aren't material.
She's the leader of the opposition. She has in multiple interviews over several years claimed to have been made a substantial offer from one of the most prestigious universities in the world that even by its standards would class her as uniquely gifted. The evidence is Stanford have never heard of her.
That's hardly "struggling with perfect recall".
Also, I realise you share Trump's misconception that ratings have anything to do with quality, but all the same if 3M paper and 21M online monthly readers is nobody reading a newspaper, then what in your view would qualify as an actual readership? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it.
Baffling to me the things you think are and aren't material.
She's the leader of the opposition. She has in multiple interviews over several years claimed to have been made a substantial offer from one of the most prestigious universities in the world that even by its standards would class her as uniquely gifted. The evidence is Stanford have never heard of her.
That's hardly "struggling with perfect recall".
Also, I realise you share Trump's misconception that ratings have anything to do with quality, but all the same if 3M paper and 21M online monthly readers is nobody reading a newspaper, then what in your view would qualify as an actual readership?"
She has numerous academic qualifications from decent UK universities. If people are terribly concerned about her academic credentials they should refer to that to establish where they think she “ranks”.
I’m sure Guardian readers are terribly concerned as to everyone’s social and academic standing and “rank”, that goes without saying, but I’m doubtful anyone else is.
As I’ve said she isn’t making any impact anyway so I can’t see why it is likely to matter that much to anyone. I’ve not seen any research as to how concerned the public are as to what scholarships Badenoch was or wasn’t offered when she was 16. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She has numerous academic qualifications from decent UK universities. If people are terribly concerned about her academic credentials they should refer to that to establish where they think she “ranks”."
Let me get this straight - as long as they have a degree from a British uni it's okay in your view for anyone running for high office in this country to make bogus claims about getting fabulously exclusive offers from prestigious universities?
"I’m sure Guardian readers are terribly concerned as to everyone’s social and academic standing and “rank”, that goes without saying, but I’m doubtful anyone else is."
She's the leader of the opposition government. Do you genuinely think that doesn't matter?
"As I’ve said she isn’t making any impact anyway so I can’t see why it is likely to matter that much to anyone. I’ve not seen any research as to how concerned the public are as to what scholarships Badenoch was or wasn’t offered when she was 16."
Do you need to see research before you'll believe the public might give a shit about a senior politician getting caught telling huge self-aggrandising lies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it."
Yet you were gunning for Rayner the other day to be literally Hung,drawn and quartered over mortgage discrepancy.
Suddenly it's a Tory and it's like Meh, whatever !!
Double standards much? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it.
Baffling to me the things you think are and aren't material.
She's the leader of the opposition. She has in multiple interviews over several years claimed to have been made a substantial offer from one of the most prestigious universities in the world that even by its standards would class her as uniquely gifted. The evidence is Stanford have never heard of her.
That's hardly "struggling with perfect recall".
Also, I realise you share Trump's misconception that ratings have anything to do with quality, but all the same if 3M paper and 21M online monthly readers is nobody reading a newspaper, then what in your view would qualify as an actual readership?
She has numerous academic qualifications from decent UK universities. If people are terribly concerned about her academic credentials they should refer to that to establish where they think she “ranks”.
I’m sure Guardian readers are terribly concerned as to everyone’s social and academic standing and “rank”, that goes without saying, but I’m doubtful anyone else is.
As I’ve said she isn’t making any impact anyway so I can’t see why it is likely to matter that much to anyone. I’ve not seen any research as to how concerned the public are as to what scholarships Badenoch was or wasn’t offered when she was 16."
None of what you have replied justifies someone who has put themselves forward to be the potential political leader of the country, lying repeatedly about a significant part of their education, when they, and others, have also made a point of similar behaviour from members of the current government.
If this sort of behaviour isn’t a big thing, it fucking should be.
Is it any wonder the public are disengaging from politics.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"Given the lack of impact she is having I’m doubtful it will make any difference one way or the other.
The issue here you think is that she may or may not be “lying” about or misremembering something about a scholarship that happened when she was 16? It hardly seems material to anything. I doubt whether anyone is judging her by whether or not she was offered a scholarship to a foreign university decades ago that, even if it happened, she didn’t take up.
It’s not like she’s pretending to be a doctor when she isn’t one.
If I had to list out the various academic choices I may or may not have had forty years ago I’d probably struggle with perfect recall too.
Is this the kind of trivia that Guardian readers concern themselves with? No wonder nobody reads it.
Yet you were gunning for Rayner the other day to be literally Hung,drawn and quartered over mortgage discrepancy.
Suddenly it's a Tory and it's like Meh, whatever !!
Double standards much?"
A “mortgage discrepancy”? Is that what we are calling tax evasion now?
Rayner has benefited to the tune of tens of thousands from her dodgy dealings.
I’m struggling to see what benefit Badenoch has gained from her alleged claims about a scholarship (or not) when she was 16.
Labour’s problem is that Starmer and his gang spent years oozing po-faced sanctimony about the Tories and as one would expect the second they have got anywhere near power their noses are straight in the trough.
Badenoch doesn’t seem very good at the sleaze. If we accept all the claims about this issue, she just seems unduly concerned about embellishing her academic standing to people who don’t care. It’s hardly the fraud of the century. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going."
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony. "
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling."
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you."
My schedule really bothers you, doesn't it.
And yeah, it's outrageous that someone as important as the leader of the opposition has turned out to have fabricated such a lofty accolade.
If we're talking sense of proportion, you don't seem to think it matters at all that one of the most powerful people in the country is a liar. But then, looking at the politicians you tend to support, I suppose integrity isn't really a priority for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you.
My schedule really bothers you, doesn't it.
And yeah, it's outrageous that someone as important as the leader of the opposition has turned out to have fabricated such a lofty accolade.
If we're talking sense of proportion, you don't seem to think it matters at all that one of the most powerful people in the country is a liar. But then, looking at the politicians you tend to support, I suppose integrity isn't really a priority for you."
I’m struggling to see what benefit you think she has got from these “outrageous lies”.
I mean it’s not like she has:
Avoided stamp duty
Got some new glasses or a suit
Got some free concert tickets
Got a new mobile phone out of her employer
So all the big stuff that Labour grifters focus on.
Etc etc
The most you can say is that people might laugh at her feeble attempts to embellish her academic credibility. Given that her actual credentials are pretty good I’m not sure why she’d bother.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you."
It is quite simple really she states a lie as a fact got caught out by the very establishment she claimed offered her a place, so she is a fibber, she is not alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you.
My schedule really bothers you, doesn't it.
And yeah, it's outrageous that someone as important as the leader of the opposition has turned out to have fabricated such a lofty accolade.
If we're talking sense of proportion, you don't seem to think it matters at all that one of the most powerful people in the country is a liar. But then, looking at the politicians you tend to support, I suppose integrity isn't really a priority for you.
I’m struggling to see what benefit you think she has got from these “outrageous lies”.
I mean it’s not like she has:
Avoided stamp duty
Got some new glasses or a suit
Got some free concert tickets
Got a new mobile phone out of her employer
So all the big stuff that Labour grifters focus on.
Etc etc
The most you can say is that people might laugh at her feeble attempts to embellish her academic credibility. Given that her actual credentials are pretty good I’m not sure why she’d bother.
"
Just clarify this for me:
Do you think the fact that she lied doesn't matter because she didn't in your view directly benefit from it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 35 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Being “American ish” I know getting a sniff of getting in Stanford requires 1 of 2 things
1) being super super smart (imagine Harvard of the west coast)
2) being a super super rich legacy kid
I don’t have kemi down as either
Even though I went to Michigan State, and my dad is a northwestern alum (think Harvard of the Midwest)
My chances of getting into northwestern would end with the words “ yes I fancy a shot at applying for northwestern “ ( just as well I didn’t ever fancy going… I laughed when my dad brought it up)
My chances of getting into Stanford would end with the words…. I  wouldn’t even get to fancy!
Saying that .. Stanford campus, absolutely beautiful! Almost wasted on the nerds!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
She has been caught out fibbing not a biggie, all politicians lie all of them.
When you realise this then you will stop voting for them and start to think about yourselves and your fellow man.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"It has emerged, as reported in the Guardian, that Kemi Badenoch's claims to have been offered a partial grant to study pre-med at Standford could not be true.
Firstly, there is no such course at Stanford and never was. Secondly, several Stanford admissions officers, including one who worked there at the time the offer was supposedly made, confirmed that they would have offered a full grant in her claimed situation, they would have been extremely unlikely to make such an offer to someone of her age at the time, and indeed no such offers were made to any Nigerian students over that period.
Badenoch's people have not been able to substantiate her claim and are instead trying to dilute it by saying she meant she had had a number of offers from various universities, but unfortunately she repeated the specific Stanford claim in several interviews over several years.
In light of Badenoch's sustained attacks on Rachel Reeves over her lies and exaggerations on her CV in relation to her roles at BoE and HBoS, this shows the Tory leader to be a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Arguably of little significance as the Conservatives continue their slump into insignificance, but they are still His Majesty's Opposition and should be expected to uphold some sort of basic integrity.
Will this hasten Jenrick's ascent "
I think she should face the same sanctions and punishment as Reeves.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you.
My schedule really bothers you, doesn't it.
And yeah, it's outrageous that someone as important as the leader of the opposition has turned out to have fabricated such a lofty accolade.
If we're talking sense of proportion, you don't seem to think it matters at all that one of the most powerful people in the country is a liar. But then, looking at the politicians you tend to support, I suppose integrity isn't really a priority for you.
I’m struggling to see what benefit you think she has got from these “outrageous lies”.
I mean it’s not like she has:
Avoided stamp duty
Got some new glasses or a suit
Got some free concert tickets
Got a new mobile phone out of her employer
So all the big stuff that Labour grifters focus on.
Etc etc
The most you can say is that people might laugh at her feeble attempts to embellish her academic credibility. Given that her actual credentials are pretty good I’m not sure why she’d bother.
Just clarify this for me:
Do you think the fact that she lied doesn't matter because she didn't in your view directly benefit from it?"
My assumption is that most politicians lie some of the time.
In the scheme of things (Iraq war, for example) I think that (let’s assume your facts are correct) saying that you got a scholarship to a university at 16 when you didn’t in fact get one, seems quite trivial and also appears to have little point.
Badenoch has a decent enough academic background as is, for those concerned about these things. Unless we can point to some specific benefit she is trying to get out of it, it just suggests that she is over sensitive about her academic status.
Some male politicians lie about their height. I don’t particularly make any great moral judgment about it. It’s just something short people sometimes do. Not being short I don’t think about it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"It's endlessly entertaining to me, the knots you'll tie yourself into to excuse and minimise the sins of some of the worst people going.
“Minimise the sins”.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
More po-faced sanctimony.
That would mean anything if you weren't constantly at the front of the queue to slag off people you don't like in the shrillest possible terms. That you're trying to wave Badenoch's outrageous lies off as a trivial memory lapse is just evidence of your mind-bending hypocrisy.
Your cognitive dissonance must be crippling.
“Outrageous lies”.
Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of proportion.
No wonder you are up all night posting on here if this is the level of minutiae that perturbs you.
My schedule really bothers you, doesn't it.
And yeah, it's outrageous that someone as important as the leader of the opposition has turned out to have fabricated such a lofty accolade.
If we're talking sense of proportion, you don't seem to think it matters at all that one of the most powerful people in the country is a liar. But then, looking at the politicians you tend to support, I suppose integrity isn't really a priority for you.
I’m struggling to see what benefit you think she has got from these “outrageous lies”.
I mean it’s not like she has:
Avoided stamp duty
Got some new glasses or a suit
Got some free concert tickets
Got a new mobile phone out of her employer
So all the big stuff that Labour grifters focus on.
Etc etc
The most you can say is that people might laugh at her feeble attempts to embellish her academic credibility. Given that her actual credentials are pretty good I’m not sure why she’d bother.
Just clarify this for me:
Do you think the fact that she lied doesn't matter because she didn't in your view directly benefit from it?
My assumption is that most politicians lie some of the time.
In the scheme of things (Iraq war, for example) I think that (let’s assume your facts are correct) saying that you got a scholarship to a university at 16 when you didn’t in fact get one, seems quite trivial and also appears to have little point.
Badenoch has a decent enough academic background as is, for those concerned about these things. Unless we can point to some specific benefit she is trying to get out of it, it just suggests that she is over sensitive about her academic status.
Some male politicians lie about their height. I don’t particularly make any great moral judgment about it. It’s just something short people sometimes do. Not being short I don’t think about it.
"
Sorry to butt in, but if I lied to you and you found out you would trust me especially if I had repeated the same lie over and over again?
Well just well, politicians have lied so much to me I can foretell their lies.
Cant you?
Theses so called politicians allow people like me to buy assets of those who can no longer afford to keep said assets, you will see this in action at the budget when assets go up to you but affordable to me.
And then I rent them back to you so you pay the mortgage at the bank rate.
I can't lose unless you open your eyes but as people argue about other issues.
Of which has no bearing, then so be it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 35 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I wonder how many politicians have been on a speed awareness course?
If so, would they brag about it?"
If we are playing “bad bingo” does that beat “having to repay money out of your salary for misspending EU funds “
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It has emerged, as reported in the Guardian, that Kemi Badenoch's claims to have been offered a partial grant to study pre-med at Standford could not be true.
Firstly, there is no such course at Stanford and never was. Secondly, several Stanford admissions officers, including one who worked there at the time the offer was supposedly made, confirmed that they would have offered a full grant in her claimed situation, they would have been extremely unlikely to make such an offer to someone of her age at the time, and indeed no such offers were made to any Nigerian students over that period.
Badenoch's people have not been able to substantiate her claim and are instead trying to dilute it by saying she meant she had had a number of offers from various universities, but unfortunately she repeated the specific Stanford claim in several interviews over several years.
In light of Badenoch's sustained attacks on Rachel Reeves over her lies and exaggerations on her CV in relation to her roles at BoE and HBoS, this shows the Tory leader to be a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Arguably of little significance as the Conservatives continue their slump into insignificance, but they are still His Majesty's Opposition and should be expected to uphold some sort of basic integrity.
Will this hasten Jenrick's ascent?"
big deal,our current chancellor lied on her cv about the position she held in the bank she worked for,they are politicians lying is what they do best |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
This doesn't sound right because Stanford, like most US Universities doesn't require a choice of subject for entry (unlike UK Universities). The concept is that you apply to the University not the Course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My assumption is that most politicians lie some of the time.
In the scheme of things (Iraq war, for example) I think that (let’s assume your facts are correct) saying that you got a scholarship to a university at 16 when you didn’t in fact get one, seems quite trivial and also appears to have little point.
Badenoch has a decent enough academic background as is, for those concerned about these things. Unless we can point to some specific benefit she is trying to get out of it, it just suggests that she is over sensitive about her academic status.
Some male politicians lie about their height. I don’t particularly make any great moral judgment about it. It’s just something short people sometimes do. Not being short I don’t think about it.
"
Okay, got it. You think it's fine for people to lie if:
- Other people lie too
- It's not as bad as the Iraq war
- They don't materially benefit from it
- It might be to make up for feelings of inadequacy
I mean it's a completely mental opinion, but you're entitled to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It has emerged, as reported in the Guardian, that Kemi Badenoch's claims to have been offered a partial grant to study pre-med at Standford could not be true.
Firstly, there is no such course at Stanford and never was. Secondly, several Stanford admissions officers, including one who worked there at the time the offer was supposedly made, confirmed that they would have offered a full grant in her claimed situation, they would have been extremely unlikely to make such an offer to someone of her age at the time, and indeed no such offers were made to any Nigerian students over that period.
Badenoch's people have not been able to substantiate her claim and are instead trying to dilute it by saying she meant she had had a number of offers from various universities, but unfortunately she repeated the specific Stanford claim in several interviews over several years.
In light of Badenoch's sustained attacks on Rachel Reeves over her lies and exaggerations on her CV in relation to her roles at BoE and HBoS, this shows the Tory leader to be a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Arguably of little significance as the Conservatives continue their slump into insignificance, but they are still His Majesty's Opposition and should be expected to uphold some sort of basic integrity.
Will this hasten Jenrick's ascent?"
What a bizarre post. Who cares about what happened twenty years ago ? What matters is what you are achieving now. The Guardian has the lowest circulation of all newspapers. It probably only appeals to woke warriors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm a bit outside the latest gossip loop. Has Rayner actually lied or been involved in tax evasion as claimed by one poster above? My understanding is that she did some perfectly legal tax avoidance like practically everyone does who can afford to hire a few hours of an accountant's time.
If Badenoch has consistently being lying about her academic history it indicates that she is deeply insecure about her intellectual capabilities and isn't that concerned about honesty.
That might apply to some other politicians too, but pointing at someone else and saying they are just as bad is a pretty lame argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What a bizarre post. Who cares about what happened twenty years ago ? What matters is what you are achieving now. The Guardian has the lowest circulation of all newspapers. It probably only appeals to woke warriors "
This will presumably blow your mind, but lots and lots of people care so much about what's happened in the past that they created an entire academic discipline around it that most people agree is so important it's taught in schools. I guess you don't remember studying it. It's called "history".
It would be surprising that you didn't know that, if you didn't also think that the Guardian has the lowest circulation of all newspapers.
ALL newspapers? You sure, buddy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)"
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day….."
how that public sector worker getting on being balls deep in your ex-wife .... it's seems to make the chip on your shoulder grow daily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What a bizarre post. Who cares about what happened twenty years ago ? What matters is what you are achieving now. The Guardian has the lowest circulation of all newspapers. It probably only appeals to woke warriors"
You were so woke on the "Is Trump dead" thread that I suspect you often drive out on your tractor into the middle of a remote field, carefully look around to make sure nobody is watching and then avidly read The Grauniad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day….."
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)"
A very strange post. Without resorting to Google I know in my head roughly what the circulation is of each paid for newspaper. The Guardian do not publish their figures but based on the last published ones in 2021 circulation was roughly 100,000 copies daily compared to 650,000 copies of the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is probably one of the most successfull newspapers of all time. Walk into any newsagents and check. Buying a newspaper gives you daily exercise via a walk and social interaction with the local newsagent plus other members of the public. You actually meet real people. In summary the Daily Mail is seven times more popular than the Guardian. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion."
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day….."
Be carefully making a post like this , I nearly spilt my drink laughing . Sometimes the truth hurts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)"
Out of interest, where did you get these figures from? The Guardian stopped publishing its figures years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A) A very strange post. Without resorting to Google I know in my head roughly what the circulation is of each paid for newspaper. The Guardian do not publish their figures but based on the last published ones in 2021 circulation was roughly 100,000 copies daily compared to 650,000 copies of the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is probably one of the most successfull newspapers of all time. Walk into any newsagents and check. Buying a newspaper gives you daily exercise via a walk and social interaction with the local newsagent plus other members of the public. You actually meet real people. In summary the Daily Mail is seven times more popular than the Guardian. "
So what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Out of interest, where did you get these figures from? The Guardian stopped publishing its figures years ago."
Ah, worked it out. These aren't actually the newspaper circulation figures - they're website access figures.
As the original point was about circulation figures, these stats are irrelevant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?"
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument."
We can safely assume that the average public sector worker probably clicks on the Grauniad website about 100 times each day (not at weekends obviously).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument."
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Zero significance. The Labour government are collapsing the country in a turbocharged way, therefore some lie that Badenhoch said is neither here nor there. She is never going to be PM and unlikely to lead the Tories in 12 months time.
This is just a story the Guardian is putting out there to distract from Tax avoiding Rayner, Incompetent Cooper, catastrophic Reeves and Starmer, the man who has done nothing but lie since he came into office.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there."
No this thread was prompted by the leader of the official opposition apparently lying repeatedly and in recent times about her academic history in an attempt to make herself look smarter than she really is.
Then some right-wingers desperately turned it into a game of shoot the messenger.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
No this thread was prompted by the leader of the official opposition apparently lying repeatedly and in recent times about her academic history in an attempt to make herself look smarter than she really is.
Then some right-wingers desperately turned it into a game of shoot the messenger.
"
That was the OP. The thread was several contiguous comments joined on the topic of circulation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A) A very strange post. Without resorting to Google I know in my head roughly what the circulation is of each paid for newspaper. The Guardian do not publish their figures but based on the last published ones in 2021 circulation was roughly 100,000 copies daily compared to 650,000 copies of the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is probably one of the most successfull newspapers of all time. Walk into any newsagents and check. Buying a newspaper gives you daily exercise via a walk and social interaction with the local newsagent plus other members of the public. You actually meet real people. In summary the Daily Mail is seven times more popular than the Guardian. "
Hi and thanks for the reply. it's easy for you to sit behind a keyboard and write garbage, but I prefer to do my own research and in the real world I think you'll find that the readership statistics, which are easily verified, show that the multiple award winning guardian has a larger readership and is growing, whereas the fringe media that is the daily mail is a smaller readership and shrinking. this shows the huge success of the countries most respected and most successful paper in the UK. Hope this helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument.
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there. "
Nah, the numbers I listed are about right. The thread was prompted by Kemi Badenoch being full of shit. Your buddies claim the article I referred to is in a paper nobody reads. One of them said it has the lowest circulation of ALL papers. Both of them are adamant nobody cares that the leader of the government's opposition made up and kept repeating a big fat fucking lie about one of the world's most prestigious universities telling her she was a child genius. You sure those are the guys you want to side with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
No this thread was prompted by the leader of the official opposition apparently lying repeatedly and in recent times about her academic history in an attempt to make herself look smarter than she really is.
Then some right-wingers desperately turned it into a game of shoot the messenger.
"
Who cares about Kemi Badenochs academic history. ? We are hardly going to ask to see her exam certificates. These exams were a long time ago ,life has moved on
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
She's obviously someone only interested in herself and has minimal or zero integrity. Telling lies about their alleged achievements has form with her party. Perhaps it'll hasten her move to reform, the Tory failure party |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument.
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
Nah, the numbers I listed are about right. The thread was prompted by Kemi Badenoch being full of shit. Your buddies claim the article I referred to is in a paper nobody reads. One of them said it has the lowest circulation of ALL papers. Both of them are adamant nobody cares that the leader of the government's opposition made up and kept repeating a big fat fucking lie about one of the world's most prestigious universities telling her she was a child genius. You sure those are the guys you want to side with?"
The numbers to which you refer are very different to the paid circulation figures. The Daily Mail has a circulation figure circa 7 times that of the Guardian. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument.
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
Nah, the numbers I listed are about right. The thread was prompted by Kemi Badenoch being full of shit. Your buddies claim the article I referred to is in a paper nobody reads. One of them said it has the lowest circulation of ALL papers. Both of them are adamant nobody cares that the leader of the government's opposition made up and kept repeating a big fat fucking lie about one of the world's most prestigious universities telling her she was a child genius. You sure those are the guys you want to side with? The numbers to which you refer are very different to the paid circulation figures. The Daily Mail has a circulation figure circa 7 times that of the Guardian. "
hi and thanks for reply, despite how odd it is for you to think that, given the overwhelming evidence against your assertion. hope this helps  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She's obviously someone only interested in herself and has minimal or zero integrity. Telling lies about their alleged achievements has form with her party. Perhaps it'll hasten her move to reform, the Tory failure party "
. Her party ? The Conservatives were in power for 14 years ,one of the most successfull parties of all time. Reform are now in the lead by a substantial percent
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument.
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
Nah, the numbers I listed are about right. The thread was prompted by Kemi Badenoch being full of shit. Your buddies claim the article I referred to is in a paper nobody reads. One of them said it has the lowest circulation of ALL papers. Both of them are adamant nobody cares that the leader of the government's opposition made up and kept repeating a big fat fucking lie about one of the world's most prestigious universities telling her she was a child genius. You sure those are the guys you want to side with? The numbers to which you refer are very different to the paid circulation figures. The Daily Mail has a circulation figure circa 7 times that of the Guardian. "
The numbers I referred to are both paper and online circulation. If you must insist on participating, you could at least pay attention.
And the Daily Mail could have a circulation 70 times that of the Guardian's, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a worthless shitrag published by grifters and read by morons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" The Conservatives were in power for 14 years ,one of the most successfull parties of all time. Reform are now in the lead by a substantial percent "
hi. what an odd thing to say. the conservative party has the lowest number of opposition seats in modern history, suffering their worst ever defeat by losing 251 seats, which makes them the least successful party in history by a very long way. you're welcome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
According to a quick google...
The Guardian cost £3 (£4 on a Saturday)
The Daily Mail costs £1.20
The Daily Expres costs 70p
The Sun costs 55p
I bought the Guardian nearly every day from about 1978 until about 1995. Peter Preston was a brilliant editor. It went a bit down hill under Alan Rusbridger but I still bought the Saturday edition.
I used to also regularly buy the Sunday Times and always read any discarded newspaper I find on my regular train travels.
But in the last decade or so most people who buy paper newspapers are either travelling on planes or aren't tech saavy.
So paper circulation numbers are biased towards mostly elderly folk who haven't kept up with technology.
So online access is arguably far more relevant in terms of readership. And the numbers aren't per click but per user as determined by things like IP addresses and cookies. The online numbers will still be slightly top heavy but the bias will be the same across titles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)
I guess all those public sector workers have to do something during the day…..
There's something strangely admirable about a man who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Admirable indeed. In fact The Guardian, together with The Observer, The Sun, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph decline to publish circulation figures. The numbers listed presumably include estimated online clicks. Misleading because some are free whilst others are behind paywalls. Those pesky facts eh?
Which are what?
These guys are saying nobody reads the Guardian. It's demonstrably not true. End of argument.
The thread was prompted by mention of circulation figures which are a fraction of the numbers you list. So there's a fact right there.
Nah, the numbers I listed are about right. The thread was prompted by Kemi Badenoch being full of shit. Your buddies claim the article I referred to is in a paper nobody reads. One of them said it has the lowest circulation of ALL papers. Both of them are adamant nobody cares that the leader of the government's opposition made up and kept repeating a big fat fucking lie about one of the world's most prestigious universities telling her she was a child genius. You sure those are the guys you want to side with?"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who cares about Kemi Badenochs academic history. ? We are hardly going to ask to see her exam certificates. These exams were a long time ago ,life has moved on"
It's not really about the past. She has apparently been lying about this stuff as recently as last year and Tory head office seems to be struggling to come up with a believable explanation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh. "
You know why it's probably less?
Because in 2025 most people who still have all their own teeth read newspapers online. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
and it was only on july 2nd that bad-enoch stood up at a group dinner during the LGA annual conference and said ...
"The difference between liars and bullshitters is that bullshitters don’t care whether what they’re saying is true or false. They just say whatever. We are not liars and we don’t do bullshit. We tell the truth. That is what my leadership is about."
she's now being served her own words for dinner
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh.
You know why it's probably less?
Because in 2025 most people who still have all their own teeth read newspapers online."
Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh.
You know why it's probably less?
Because in 2025 most people who still have all their own teeth read newspapers online.
Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are."
Yeah, we did this one already, you had your ass handed to you and went all quiet. I can go again if you want, but why don't you save us all the trouble. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh.
You know why it's probably less?
Because in 2025 most people who still have all their own teeth read newspapers online.
Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
Yeah, we did this one already, you had your ass handed to you and went all quiet. I can go again if you want, but why don't you save us all the trouble."
Not my recollection. But truck on with your leftie pipe dreams eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"and it was only on july 2nd that bad-enoch stood up at a group dinner during the LGA annual conference and said ...
"The difference between liars and bullshitters is that bullshitters don’t care whether what they’re saying is true or false. They just say whatever. We are not liars and we don’t do bullshit. We tell the truth. That is what my leadership is about."
she's now being served her own words for dinner"
She made a right dog's dinner of plagiarizing a Harry Frankfurt concept...
"Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies."
I disagree with this argument. Not giving a damn about the truth is not as bad as deliberately subverting it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"and it was only on july 2nd that bad-enoch stood up at a group dinner during the LGA annual conference and said ...
"The difference between liars and bullshitters is that bullshitters don’t care whether what they’re saying is true or false. They just say whatever. We are not liars and we don’t do bullshit. We tell the truth. That is what my leadership is about."
she's now being served her own words for dinner
She made a right dog's dinner of plagiarizing a Harry Frankfurt concept...
Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies.
I disagree with this argument. Not giving a damn about the truth is not as bad as deliberately subverting it.
"
just to recap, the speech she gave was bullshit about not being liars proving she doesn't mind be either or when it suits |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are."
Please don't encourage him. Last time he asserted that the Guardian was the most biased and misleading newspaper available so he had to be shown the greatest hits of the right-wing tabloids vol. 1, Hillsborough through "Enemies of the People". He kind of slunk off, but according to the above he remembers it as a great victory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are."
tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are.
tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes."
Ah, so you have changed your tune, at least a little. Fair play. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The last reported circulation figures for the Guardian from 2021 showed a pitiful average daily circulation of 105,134 copies. In paper copy it's probably far less in 2025. For you to include online clickbait number is meaningless tbh.
You know why it's probably less?
Because in 2025 most people who still have all their own teeth read newspapers online."
Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes."
I try to absorb as wide a spectrum of news and opinion as possible and filter it and test it against reliable data sources like statistical databases and official records. Another thing I try to do is track down any original documention involved rather than trust second or third hand commentry.
So we might have similar scepticism.
However in the case of this particular story (or recent ones that have been under discussion) what exactly do you think the leftist tropes of the Guardian have been?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist."
Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 buying, carrying or reading the Daily Mail? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist.
Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 buying, carrying or reading the Daily Mail?"
. A rather bizarre comment. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 54 a lot of people under the age of 50 must buy it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist.
Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 buying, carrying or reading the Daily Mail?. A rather bizarre comment. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 54 a lot of people under the age of 50 must buy it. "
The average Daily Mail print edition reader is in fact between 56 and 60.
Which, per my comment, is a pretty reasonable age at which to assume that people no longer have all of their own teeth.
For comparison, the average Mail Online reader is between 32 and 37.
So how about YOU get out a little more and see what is actually happening in the World? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ipsos have badenock on 11% satisfaction, the lowest of any current party leader. (Farage 34%, starmer 19%)
She’s a gonner "
I don't think anyone who was part of the last conservative government has any chance to change the tide. No matter what they say, the question people ask will be, "why didn't you do it when you were in power?"
Their last term killed off any chance to come back for a few years now. Jenrick might be more popular than Kemi but still won't be good enough. They need a fresh start with a fresh face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are.
tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes.
Ah, so you have changed your tune, at least a little. Fair play."
Not at all, I see the big picture and don't fall for ideological BS.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are.
tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes.
Ah, so you have changed your tune, at least a little. Fair play.
Not at all, I see the big picture and don't fall for ideological BS.
"
All you ever do is slate the left and the leftists and so on. The other day you were convinced that the Eppimg injunction overturn HAD to be a leftist conspiracy. Not long ago you were advancing that the Guardian was worse for bias than the Mail and the Sun. You still single it out in the above quoted post with nary a mention of the flagrant partisanship of other papers. "Big picture"? Nah, man. You're like Fox News and their "Fair and Balanced" slogan. You're so far right you think the centre is all the way left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist.
Have you ever seen anyone under the age of 50 buying, carrying or reading the Daily Mail?. A rather bizarre comment. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 54 a lot of people under the age of 50 must buy it.
The average Daily Mail print edition reader is in fact between 56 and 60.
Which, per my comment, is a pretty reasonable age at which to assume that people no longer have all of their own teeth.
For comparison, the average Mail Online reader is between 32 and 37.
So how about YOU get out a little more and see what is actually happening in the World?"
. Another bizarre post. It is pretty disgusting making comments about people losing their teeth. A completely made up comment with no evidence to back it up. I prefer to treat people with respect and not result to making derogatory comments about their teeth. In any event the Daily Mail is the most successfull of all the national newspapers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another bizarre post. It is pretty disgusting making comments about people losing their teeth. A completely made up comment with no evidence to back it up. I prefer to treat people with respect and not result to making derogatory comments about their teeth. In any event the Daily Mail is the most successfull of all the national newspapers. "
Oh, quit clutching your pearls. People lose their teeth when they get old, did you not know that?
And as above, the Daily Mail could have a bigger circulation than the Bible and it would still be unfit to wipe arses with. Popularity does not signify anything but popularity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another bizarre post. It is pretty disgusting making comments about people losing their teeth. A completely made up comment with no evidence to back it up. I prefer to treat people with respect and not result to making derogatory comments about their teeth. In any event the Daily Mail is the most successfull of all the national newspapers.
Oh, quit clutching your pearls. People lose their teeth when they get old, did you not know that?
And as above, the Daily Mail could have a bigger circulation than the Bible and it would still be unfit to wipe arses with. Popularity does not signify anything but popularity."
I think you will find that people lose their teeth because they have either failed to visit a dentist or cleaned them regularly. Little to do with age |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another bizarre post. It is pretty disgusting making comments about people losing their teeth. A completely made up comment with no evidence to back it up. I prefer to treat people with respect and not result to making derogatory comments about their teeth. In any event the Daily Mail is the most successfull of all the national newspapers.
Oh, quit clutching your pearls. People lose their teeth when they get old, did you not know that?
And as above, the Daily Mail could have a bigger circulation than the Bible and it would still be unfit to wipe arses with. Popularity does not signify anything but popularity. I think you will find that people lose their teeth because they have either failed to visit a dentist or cleaned them regularly. Little to do with age "
It's directly correlated with age. Do you want me to pull the numbers?
Fuck it.
UK averages:
Age 24-35: 28 teeth
All ages: 25 teeth
Age 75+: 19 teeth
I didn't say tooth loss is caused by getting old. I said people lose their teeth when they get old. Either way, quit whining about a figure of speech, I thought you lot were supposed to be the thick-skinned ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Sounds like you may need to get out a little more and see what is actually happening in thw world. Most newspaper readers have their own teeth and where necessary visit the dentist. "
The bloke was using a figure of speech, for goodness sake!
Ever heard of one of those? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The Guardian 22.68 million (up 7% yoy)
Daily Mail Online 21.77 mil (down 7% yoy)
The Sun 22.4 million (down 4.7% yoy)
Independent 21.23 million (N/A)"
These numbers are utterly dwarfed by the totally legit news site Taboola, which sees millions upon millions clicking through their articles.
We really need to pay more attention to Taboola - half a billion people can't be wrong...
AND it gives you information doctors don't want you to know, can cure a hanging gut or nail fungus, gives amazing hacks for phones with just aluminium foil and has fantastic articles on celebrities we grew up with (the third one will shock you!). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Politicians lying, even about past education or jobs is obviously bad but who is the biggest winner from this revelation. Labour might gain a bit but personally i have not considered the Tories to be a threat to them under the current leader. Reform are already ahead and may not want focus on details of claims of the past. I wonder if the biggest winners are those in the Tory party considering a leadership change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"Indeed, and how entertaining those BS Gruaniad feeds are.
I'm curious as to what you consider reliable sources of information are.
tbh I'm not sure there are any that are consistently reliable and unbiased. A lot of news is subjective and viewed through the prism of bias. So in the end we have to use our judgement and experience and not swallow the BS verbatim as some do. Of newspapers, the broadsheets are better, although the Guardian all too often falls back on leftist tropes.
Ah, so you have changed your tune, at least a little. Fair play.
Not at all, I see the big picture and don't fall for ideological BS.
All you ever do is slate the left and the leftists and so on. The other day you were convinced that the Eppimg injunction overturn HAD to be a leftist conspiracy. Not long ago you were advancing that the Guardian was worse for bias than the Mail and the Sun. You still single it out in the above quoted post with nary a mention of the flagrant partisanship of other papers. "Big picture"? Nah, man. You're like Fox News and their "Fair and Balanced" slogan. You're so far right you think the centre is all the way left."
Hysterical ranting about the 'far right' again. Like most on here, I'm far from right wing, but mature enough to call BS when I smell it - irrespective of the source. But any criticism of the left and straight away you're either throwing insults or full of 'whataboutisms'. You need to calm down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
All you ever do is slate the left and the leftists and so on. The other day you were convinced that the Eppimg injunction overturn HAD to be a leftist conspiracy. Not long ago you were advancing that the Guardian was worse for bias than the Mail and the Sun. You still single it out in the above quoted post with nary a mention of the flagrant partisanship of other papers. "Big picture"? Nah, man. You're like Fox News and their "Fair and Balanced" slogan. You're so far right you think the centre is all the way left.
Hysterical ranting about the 'far right' again. Like most on here, I'm far from right wing, but mature enough to call BS when I smell it - irrespective of the source. But any criticism of the left and straight away you're either throwing insults or full of 'whataboutisms'. You need to calm down."
"Far from right wing?"
You're a cliché of little-England gammon, mate. As for "irrespective of the source", I have yet to see you say a single negative word about anyone or anything on the right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Politicians lying, even about past education or jobs is obviously bad but who is the biggest winner from this revelation. Labour might gain a bit but personally i have not considered the Tories to be a threat to them under the current leader. Reform are already ahead and may not want focus on details of claims of the past. I wonder if the biggest winners are those in the Tory party considering a leadership change."
there'll be regime change for the torys this autumn. if jenrick wins it will split the far right vote and the moderate centrist parties will walk through them both |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Tories are basically doomed.
Labour's move to the right means that they occupy much of the ground that the Tories used to. Although some crazies on the right still cling to the idea that Starmer is some kind of Communist.
The ground remaining to the right of Labour has been occupied by Reform.
So there's almost no room left for the Tories.
The Tories made a fatal mistake moving to the right and abandoning One Nation centralist positions because they didn't factor in that people on the right would go all out and back Farage. Why vote Tory when you can get red meat from Reform?
There aren't any heavyweight centralist Tory figures like Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke around to bring the Tories back to their old and highly successful position so they'll likely remain where they are.
Their only hope is that Reform win the next GE and make such a terrible mess of things that the Tories can step up and say we are at least semi-competent in comparison.
Either that or the Tories and Reform merge but that's unlikely in the short term. Instead we'll see defections from Tory to Reform.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Tories are basically doomed.
Labour's move to the right means that they occupy much of the ground that the Tories used to. Although some crazies on the right still cling to the idea that Starmer is some kind of Communist.
The ground remaining to the right of Labour has been occupied by Reform.
So there's almost no room left for the Tories.
The Tories made a fatal mistake moving to the right and abandoning One Nation centralist positions because they didn't factor in that people on the right would go all out and back Farage. Why vote Tory when you can get red meat from Reform?
There aren't any heavyweight centralist Tory figures like Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke around to bring the Tories back to their old and highly successful position so they'll likely remain where they are.
Their only hope is that Reform win the next GE and make such a terrible mess of things that the Tories can step up and say we are at least semi-competent in comparison.
Either that or the Tories and Reform merge but that's unlikely in the short term. Instead we'll see defections from Tory to Reform.
"
This, absolutely.
The two things that will ultimately do for the Tories are firstly that they somehow managed to move both too far to the right and not far enough to the right, and secondly the latter dominance of fundamentally unserious, lightweight figures like Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Badenoch and so on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The Tories are basically doomed.
Labour's move to the right means that they occupy much of the ground that the Tories used to. Although some crazies on the right still cling to the idea that Starmer is some kind of Communist.
The ground remaining to the right of Labour has been occupied by Reform.
So there's almost no room left for the Tories.
The Tories made a fatal mistake moving to the right and abandoning One Nation centralist positions because they didn't factor in that people on the right would go all out and back Farage. Why vote Tory when you can get red meat from Reform?
There aren't any heavyweight centralist Tory figures like Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke around to bring the Tories back to their old and highly successful position so they'll likely remain where they are.
Their only hope is that Reform win the next GE and make such a terrible mess of things that the Tories can step up and say we are at least semi-competent in comparison.
Either that or the Tories and Reform merge but that's unlikely in the short term. Instead we'll see defections from Tory to Reform.
This, absolutely.
The two things that will ultimately do for the Tories are firstly that they somehow managed to move both too far to the right and not far enough to the right, and secondly the latter dominance of fundamentally unserious, lightweight figures like Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Badenoch and so on."
This is offset by Labour introducing policies that upset their core left wing voters. That has created a void on the left, while Reform are filling the space on the right. Both main parties are losing support in opposite directions, which is why Reform’s position looks strong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is offset by Labour introducing policies that upset their core left wing voters. That has created a void on the left, while Reform are filling the space on the right. Both main parties are losing support in opposite directions, which is why Reform’s position looks strong."
In the GE I suspect virtually everyone on the left will vote tactically to keep Reform out. Some people on the left might even end up voting Tory!
If the Tories were to merge with Reform a further section on the current left of the party will probably switch to LibDem. Not because the LibDems are to the right of Labour but because there has traditionally been a section of people who swing between the Tories and LibDems.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This is offset by Labour introducing policies that upset their core left wing voters. That has created a void on the left, while Reform are filling the space on the right. Both main parties are losing support in opposite directions, which is why Reform’s position looks strong.
In the GE I suspect virtually everyone on the left will vote tactically to keep Reform out. Some people on the left might even end up voting Tory!
If the Tories were to merge with Reform a further section on the current left of the party will probably switch to LibDem. Not because the LibDems are to the right of Labour but because there has traditionally been a section of people who swing between the Tories and LibDems.
"
In my opinion, neither the Conservatives or Reform would want a merger. Labour, however, risk losing voters to Reform and to Corbyn.
Unless Labour get off the self destructive path they are on, we could be heading for a hung parliament, which would play straight into Farage’s hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In my opinion, neither the Conservatives or Reform would want a merger. Labour, however, risk losing voters to Reform and to Corbyn.
Unless Labour get off the self destructive path they are on, we could be heading for a hung parliament, which would play straight into Farage’s hands."
I think if, as seems likely, that Jenrick replaces Badenoch soon there could be a change. Maybe not a merger as such but much closer cooperation.
Apparently in April Jenrick was talking about Reform like so...
"I want the fight to be united. And so, one way or another, I’m determined to do that and to bring this coalition together and make sure we unite as a nation as well."
Badenoch slapped him on the wrist and he then said he wanted to put Reform out of business, but it's clear that some Tories want to join forces with Reform.
I suspect those Labour supporters on the social right have already switched to Reform. I don't see this sector growing much more.
Any GE is still years away so it's impossible to predict any outcome but if everyone on the left voted tactically Reform wouldn't get many seats.
When you say a hung Parliament would play into Farage's hands what do you mean?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"In my opinion, neither the Conservatives or Reform would want a merger. Labour, however, risk losing voters to Reform and to Corbyn.
Unless Labour get off the self destructive path they are on, we could be heading for a hung parliament, which would play straight into Farage’s hands.
I think if, as seems likely, that Jenrick replaces Badenoch soon there could be a change. Maybe not a merger as such but much closer cooperation.
Apparently in April Jenrick was talking about Reform like so...
"I want the fight to be united. And so, one way or another, I’m determined to do that and to bring this coalition together and make sure we unite as a nation as well."
Badenoch slapped him on the wrist and he then said he wanted to put Reform out of business, but it's clear that some Tories want to join forces with Reform.
I suspect those Labour supporters on the social right have already switched to Reform. I don't see this sector growing much more.
Any GE is still years away so it's impossible to predict any outcome but if everyone on the left voted tactically Reform wouldn't get many seats.
When you say a hung Parliament would play into Farage's hands what do you mean?
"
I don't believe Reform will win a GE, and I also believe Farage knows this.
He formed Reform to tackle the migrant crossings, just as he formed UKIP to leave the EU. His strength is disruption and influence, the idea of leaving the ECHR is placing an in or out decision back to the electorate, that should be enough for him to begin influencing the big 2's policies. The next best thing is being part of a hung parliament, it would come with more responsibility so I feel it would be a short lived arrangement until he got what he wanted and then left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't believe Reform will win a GE, and I also believe Farage knows this.
He formed Reform to tackle the migrant crossings, just as he formed UKIP to leave the EU. His strength is disruption and influence, the idea of leaving the ECHR is placing an in or out decision back to the electorate, that should be enough for him to begin influencing the big 2's policies. The next best thing is being part of a hung parliament, it would come with more responsibility so I feel it would be a short lived arrangement until he got what he wanted and then left."
I agree with much of that but disagree about the primary goal of Reform and the relevance of ECHR (because there'd still be the 1951 Refugee Convention to deal with).
The goal of people like Farage and Richard Tice isn't really to cut immigration, it's to cut taxation. Their last manifesto included £90 billion in tax cuts.
I think the small boats stuff is mostly just a convenient smoke screen to gain sufficient power to cut taxation and if they actually managed to form a government then the cuts wouldn't stop at £90 billion.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I don't believe Reform will win a GE, and I also believe Farage knows this.
He formed Reform to tackle the migrant crossings, just as he formed UKIP to leave the EU. His strength is disruption and influence, the idea of leaving the ECHR is placing an in or out decision back to the electorate, that should be enough for him to begin influencing the big 2's policies. The next best thing is being part of a hung parliament, it would come with more responsibility so I feel it would be a short lived arrangement until he got what he wanted and then left.
I agree with much of that but disagree about the primary goal of Reform and the relevance of ECHR (because there'd still be the 1951 Refugee Convention to deal with).
The goal of people like Farage and Richard Tice isn't really to cut immigration, it's to cut taxation. Their last manifesto included £90 billion in tax cuts.
I think the small boats stuff is mostly just a convenient smoke screen to gain sufficient power to cut taxation and if they actually managed to form a government then the cuts wouldn't stop at £90 billion.
"
I should have been a little clearer. The idea of leaving the ECHR to fix the small boat crossings is enough to gain the momentum he needs to pick up labour and tory voters, which in turn gives him the influence.
I don't believe we will leave the ECHR because of the complexities that would follow and time needed, even if Reform did take power. What I expect would be the most likely outcome is Farage to pressure whoever takes the next GE to amend the refugee convention and ignore any ruling from Strasbourg, which we are at liberty to do.
That is why a hung parliament could be Farage's ultimate goal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Thanks for the clarification of your thinking.
But as I said I don't think the small boats issue is anything other than a smoke screen. Regular legal immigration will continue regardless of what happens on the asylum front as businesses aren't prepared to pay enough to entice sufficient numbers of "native people" to work for minimum wage doing jobs like social care, crop picking, working as mindless robots on a production line etc.
Reform (and MAGAs) real agenda is about cutting taxation.
For anyone who can't grasp what cutting £90 billion a year would be like, it's about half of the running cost of the NHS.
Tory austerity would be nothing compared with Reform austerity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if there's a hung parliament the incumbent party gets first dibs to form a coalition. this would probably lock out reform from power as it has locked out the extreme right across europe."
hung parliament? Are you kidding? Labour absolutely tanking after just 12 months. Not a chance will they be anywhere near forming a government. If Reform cannot get a majority, I suspect they will join with the Tories as they won’t have a choice.
As for Badenoch lying, the business secretary lied about being a solicitor and he kept his job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Thanks for the clarification of your thinking.
But as I said I don't think the small boats issue is anything other than a smoke screen. Regular legal immigration will continue regardless of what happens on the asylum front as businesses aren't prepared to pay enough to entice sufficient numbers of "native people" to work for minimum wage doing jobs like social care, crop picking, working as mindless robots on a production line etc.
Reform (and MAGAs) real agenda is about cutting taxation.
For anyone who can't grasp what cutting £90 billion a year would be like, it's about half of the running cost of the NHS.
Tory austerity would be nothing compared with Reform austerity."
Sounds good though, £90bn a year. He could put it on the side of a bus £247 million a day savings.
Regular immigration agreed, needs and will continue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sounds good though, £90bn a year. He could put it on the side of a bus £247 million a day savings.
Regular immigration agreed, needs and will continue."
Yeah, "We'll save you £247 million a day" sounds great.
It's good to see some agreement between us for a change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 35 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!! "
you're just waving your dick at bad-enoch now aint ya |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 35 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!!
you're just waving your dick at bad-enoch now aint ya "
Noooooo…… not at all!  I am just saying with those grades I was thinking more party school than academic school!!
Not say Michigan State is a pure party school…. I enjoy it whilst the other school we don’t like was the nerdy one! Will say Michigan State do specifically actively take more uk and European students which helped…
Stanford actually tend to look towards rich Asian students…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 35 weeks ago
|
"I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!!
you're just waving your dick at bad-enoch now aint ya
Noooooo…… not at all! I am just saying with those grades I was thinking more party school than academic school!!
Not say Michigan State is a pure party school…. I enjoy it whilst the other school we don’t like was the nerdy one! Will say Michigan State do specifically actively take more uk and European students which helped…
Stanford actually tend to look towards rich Asian students…."
Don’t US universities discriminate against Asian students as they are too successful? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 35 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!!
you're just waving your dick at bad-enoch now aint ya
Noooooo…… not at all! I am just saying with those grades I was thinking more party school than academic school!!
Not say Michigan State is a pure party school…. I enjoy it whilst the other school we don’t like was the nerdy one! Will say Michigan State do specifically actively take more uk and European students which helped…
Stanford actually tend to look towards rich Asian students….
Don’t US universities discriminate against Asian students as they are too successful?"
Stanford in theory don’t have to as they are a private institution……
Stanford have always tended to attract Chinese and Korean students
The Harvard case was always weird as the majority of people going there are either white or Asian… but Harvard are so rich that if you are smart enough to get in, they will give you some part of a scholarship or full so you can go regardless of wealth
So it was scholarships aimed at primarily black people to make sure they could go are what certain Asian people complain about, even though about a third of the people who go to Harvard are Asian (both us and international students) and less than 10% who go to Harvard are black … which is less that white, Asian and Hispanic students who go to Harvard |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 35 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I didn’t realise kemi got two B,s and a D at a level…. She would not have gotten a sniff at Stanford with those! They would have laughed her out the door!
If she was going to lie about applying to a us school at least make it believable… like the one I went to!!!
you're just waving your dick at bad-enoch now aint ya
Noooooo…… not at all! I am just saying with those grades I was thinking more party school than academic school!!
Not say Michigan State is a pure party school…. I enjoy it whilst the other school we don’t like was the nerdy one! Will say Michigan State do specifically actively take more uk and European students which helped…
Stanford actually tend to look towards rich Asian students…."
If she wasn’t the brightest at that age, as you suggest, then it makes sense why she might have thought a pre-med course existed as a package of sub courses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
