Read the 'inside' story of today's reshuffle.

I thought the article was simply typical of a satirical sketch writer but I guess that was the purpose of printing it.

As there are more than one thread on the subject I am repeating my point of view about Rishi Sunak.

I have watched Rishi Sunak on quite a few political programmes and also being interviewed and to be honest I think the John McDonnell brigade name calling shows more about them than Rishi Sunak.

He is unfortunately for him a target because he is educated, wealthy, a Conservative and polite. Traits that apparently are to be scoffed at or pathetically gives rise to him being seen as a ' Patsy' or a ' Poodle'.

Time will tell if the closeness of No 10 and No 11 will survive or be for the good but past governments of various colours have shown that acrimony between the Prime Minister and his/her Chancellor has not been a force for good for government cohesion and governance.

I am prepared to wait, watch and make an intelligent decision as to whether or not Rishi Sunak makes a good Chancellor but his race/backround/ education/wealth do not enter into the equation from my perspective. I will leave that to those who enjoy using such things to attack the character of a person whose character they wish to destroy without any knowledge or even bothered to assess.

As a matter of interest, what are your sources for serious news and politics MOnica?

I'm afraid that I tend to agree with you about the Guardian, Monica, although I think they have many good writers, including John Crace, I have always felt that it seemed to be a house journal for teachers, social workers and lecturers in sociology, and if you were not one of these good folk you had no right to be reading it. It can be quite predictable and a tad indigestable.

In spite of all that I would hate to see our only (slightly) left of centre serious national newspaper disappear and I think it is admirable that it can be freely accessed online. I think those of us who take advantage of that access should contribute what we can to keep it going. The country would be immeasurably poorer without the Guardian and the Observor.

I read the Mail and the i. The Observer and Telegraph at weekends.

Just as they say the devil has all the best tunes the right wing papers have the best journalism, I read them for that not their politics. I have tried so hard over the years to be a Guardian reader, but just find its humourless morally superior style indigestible.

Even the cartoon strips are worthy. That applies to The Observer as well, although, thankfully, its journalism is neither humourless nor morally superior. No paper who publishes Jay Rainer could be humourless.

You assume too much MOnica.

I have never in my life thought that my views on anything are the only correct views or that anybody who thinks differently is necessarily venal or out to mislead. However, I am capable of sorting out bigotry and myth from facts and well thought out arguments.

I hold my hands up. I read the Daily Mail and Express and I think they're both absolute rubbish, which pander to narrow-minded nationalists, who want simple solutions to big issues.

I won't pay to read any paper behind a paywall.

Greymar
Love it

anniezzz09, actually I do not read The Guardian, the link I posted came up when I googled something else and I just clicked on it because it sounded interesting.

I also dislike the way so many people keep utting down the tabloids. They do report a lot of rubbish but all of them have run campaigns that have substantially helped its readers.

Most of those that look down on the tabloids do so because they have political views different from those of the tabloid papers and are so absolutely sure that their views are the ownly absolutely correct views that can never be assailed that anyone, or worse, any newspaper who actually thinks differently must be venal, lying, out to mislead etc etc. They are so sure of themselves they make papal infallibility look iffy.

Thanks for the link MOnica gave me a chuckle today

We've had years of people complaining about being governed by unelected bureaucrats and public school/Oxbridge educated elites.

Yet, these very same people are supporting a government which includes people such as Dominic Cummings and Zac Goldsmith and didn't bat an eyelid when Nicky Morgan kept her position.

The current government is made up a huge number of public school and Oxbridge educated members. The new Chancellor is the son-in-law of a billionaire and Johnson himself comes from an A-lister political family.

Some serious questions need to be asked and addressed.

I agree Yehbutnobut. It seems to have become the new "politically correct" not to talk about it.

I also agree that many workers are still exploited. However, they don't tend to be unionised and don't live in close-knit communities with shared values any more. A sense of solidarity no longer exists (if it ever did).

Why don't you think that the LP could support such people, anniezzz09?

MaizieD, I agree with your paragraph about exploited workers, just doubtful that the Labour Party can any longer be relied upon to support such people. We need a new political party to confront Conservative policies or a Labour leader with guts.

@growstuff

Your post of 12.22.

I agree that the workers you describe are no longer a significant force but I think they have been replaced, or added to, by other exploited workers who equally need the Labour Party to stand up for them. 'Fulfilment Centre' workers, people on zero hours contracts, couriers whose every move is timed and tracked, carers delivering care to people in their own homes etc; I think the list could be quite long.

It bothers me not in the slightest to be accused of intellectual snobbery, especially by people who have never been able to give us any rational and fact based reason for voting to leave the EU.

his

Actually I think this subject does need airing, especially when it has led us down a path, for the next 4-5 years, that may well prove disasterous for Workington Man and is wife.

Maisie I wasn’t apologising.

annizzz I'm fed up with trying to be polite.

There's a video somewhere of a speech Dominic Cummings made after the referendum. As people know, he was the mastermind behind the Leave campaign. He stated clearly the Leave vote began to win when they shifted tactics from rational arguments to visceral, emotional appeals.

I was commenting on your first post growstuff not the second but I do agree with both.

That's a hot potato growstuff but if the debate is whether people vote by thinking or through emotional allegiance then, it is relevant. Why do politicians, after all, campaign in headline terms, sound memes I believe they're called. They appeal to the emotions. And emotions appear in all of us but may hold more sway in those less able to rationalise.

The traditional working class, working long hours in unsafe factories, fighting against the injustices of inhumane factory owners, with no chance of owning property, who were one of the main reasons the Labour Party came into existence, have long ceased to exist as a significant force. Their values are just as likely to be conservative (with a small "c") as anybody else's.

No Opal just thinkers. What's your thought through opinion then? Give us an example of an enlightened working person of the 21st century.

Why is it amusing?

I have never considered myself a socialist.

Don't forget that 50% of the population are, by definition, less intelligent than average.

It isn't elitist in the least, 'oopsaminty', I come from a working class background but benefitted from a grammar school. My point is that education in the UK now leaves a lot to be desired and the tabloids are pure poison and set to uninform as supposed to inform.

As to the Labour Party, its list its way and hasn't supported the so-called working man or woman for a long time. Many would dispute that something called the working class still exists anyway, we're all middle class now!