THE WAITROSE QUESTION

Guest Post by "Annie"

Do you shop in Waitrose?  

If not, why not?  

If you live in Scotland it could be because you don't have one near you. Even if there was, could you afford to shop there?  

Waitrose is well known as a high-end supermarket where a £50 bag of messages will set you back £50 for the groceries plus £10 for the privilege of shopping in Waitrose.  

There are only 3 in Scotland.  Unsurprisingly they are in the upmarket environs of Edinburgh, Newton Mearns and Stirling (wonder if the people from the Raploch go there).

Now London Labour has taken up the cudgel on behalf of the downtrodden.  In a recent Financial Times article it is reported that the latest salvo against “big business” they have Waitrose in their sights. Their attack is focused on the myWaitrose loyalty scheme which they say is having a bad effect on small coffee shops on the UK’s high streets.  

The scheme allows shoppers with a "myWaitrose" card to have a free daily tea or coffee, even if they don’t buy anything else in the store.  Fair enough you might say.  

But the Labour Party’s view certainly accords with that of Waitrose customers who don't like the scheme because it attracts the “wrong type” of customers.  (This will be why they don't have many shops in Scotland – too many plebs!). 

But wait a minute, is Waitrose not the food retailing arm of John Lewis – an employee owned company and previously hailed by the same Labour Party as the acceptable face of capitalism?  Is it not the sort business “red” Ed wants to encourage in his drive against “big business” – the companies that treat their customers and shareholders with contempt?  

Or it could just be that the high heid yins in the Labour Party, who live most of their lives in London, have suddenly noticed whilst shopping in their local Waitrose that there are all these people there drinking free coffee, and they would rather not rub shoulders with them outwith their constituency surgeries. 

If this is the sort of thing that the Labour Party in Westminster think is worthy of a campaign it is one more reason to think that their view of Scotland, where “The Waitrose Question” does not arise, remains that it is a far off place of which they know little.  

Yet another argument for Scotland being run from Scotland by the Scots.

I wonder what Keir Hardie would think of this storm in a coffee cup and more importantly, would he be shopping at Waitrose? 

PHOTOS ON (very nearly) FRIDAY

Anyone know the number of this U-turn?

Yeah, go on. Vote for Davenomics

You have to admit, it makes no sense.
They aren't the cuddly type really, are they?

Gideon looking a little more sensible than normal

Big choice...

But they won't admit it...
and that is where they lose any kind of credibility

Lord Darling of Referendum?

Obvious. He's there to keep the
 bad stuff from touching the Tories. 

Smug, self satisfied smile wiped off...again.

Many of the answers are now at your fingertips.
No hasn't got an answer to anything yet...ask Alistair.

Starting in around 1947 the money these British Empire people
 have wasted on being important  and being able to kill people
while we lived in slums and went hungry... and died of curable diseases

...especially if I debate with Alex. If I have to I'll send Clegg.
He's expendable

Failure as Secretary of State for the Empire Number 3.
Soon will the Liberals run out of people and it will be Muddle's turn

Good place to be a BANKER

Borrow now.. Pay it back over 5 years

And we say lying Tory bastard

SNAPS ON SATURDAY

In front of labour Headquarters. Can you see Lammy? There are proper Labour people

Bravo

You tell them, hen. I'll hud yer coat...Ewww, on reflection, you can hold it yourself. People might think it was mine. 

Don't worry Lammy. They'll work out who you are one day...maybe

Hmmm, that could be because you ARE useless, Ed

Thanks heaven for photoshop. Imagine in the days when they would have had to pose for something as repugnant as this shot.

THEY ARE ALL EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR HERE THAN THEY ARE IN THE REST OF THE UK

Our regular reader, Arbroath1314 pointed out this gem which I felt deserved a slightly higher prominence than where it was as comment 22 on the last post.

It shows how having a good government to compare to the rabble at Westminster effects the way that people in Scotland perceive that rabble.

"Details of today’s ICM poll show that people in Scotland believe that Westminster government and politicians of all three anti-independence parties are doing a worse job than people in any other part of the UK.

"The net disapproval ratings for the Westminster coalition government are minus 24% across Great Britain compared to a huge minus 38% in Scotland. David Cameron’s disapproval are minus 12% across Great Britain compared to minus 34% in Scotland; George Osborne’s are minus 32% to minus 62%; and Nick Clegg’s are minus 26% to minus 34%.

"The Labour opposition leaders in Westminster fare little better with their leader Ed Miliband at minus 13% across Great Britain compared to minus 28% in Scotland; and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls at minus 8% in Great Britain and minus 30% in Scotland.

"The poll breakdowns for Scotland also show the SNP running at 43% to 36% for Labour.

"Now remind me again, WHY are are we better together?!" 

Sources here and here

Thanks Arbroath... Good article.

CAN WE PLEASE START TREATING SERIOUS MATTERS SERIOUSLY

Last week, on a radio show hosted by Victoria Derbyshire, a Sue McGregor or Sarah Montague wannabe, the English Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, said (and I paraphrase) that there are no rapes that aren’t bad and no rapes that aren’t wrong, but that some are worse than others.

It caused an outrage which has persisted through the week and into the weekend.

I forced myself to listen to the interview and I could find nothing actually wrong with what he was saying. Even if Ken Clarke’s delivery was a little laid back and clinical, rather than emotional, it was not offensive in its content. And what he was saying was surely correct.

People, quite rightly, feel very strongly about the subject, but, politically correct to say it, or not, there are some rapes that are far worse than others.

This is because rape is defined as all sexual activity where consent has not been given by both adult parties. It ranges from frenzied sexual attacks to consensual sex with a person who, because of age, is not LEGALLY competent to give consent, and all the statistics include both extremes, and all those in between.

Given that the age of consent varies within Europe from country to country, we have the ridiculous situation that, if a Frenchman of 18 and his 15 year old wife, on honeymoon in England, indulge in intercourse, then according to English law, (and Scottish for that matter) he will have raped her, because she was not old enough to give her consent. It may be offensive to English sensibilities, and wrong under their law, but it is surely very different from a rape which involves a violent attack in a dark alley by a complete stranger.

It is right that this, and pleading guilty, thus sparing the victim the further violation of reliving the event, should be reflected in sentencing. This is the general sense of the argument that Ken was trying to get over. It was not offensive. It was common sense.

As a result of the interview there have been calls for Clarke’s resignation from government, led by the opportunistic Ed Miliband.

Worse still Jack Straw, who never apologised for anything when in office, said that he would have apologised and that he would have been moved to another job (not sacked, just moved to another job) had he been in that situation. Presumably if you cock up one job in Labour, you are sent to another department so you can do it there too.

Meanwhile, it has gone almost completely unnoticed that on May 16, Nadine Dorries said in an interview with another daytime interviewer, that child abuse could be reduced if the victims had been taught to say “no”.

Now I’ll admit that I haven’t seen Dorries’ interview (nothing on Earth could persuade me watch Vanessa ‘does my bum look big in this’ Phelps), but it seems to me that her comments (if reported correctly) were very much more offensive than those of her senior colleague.

Maybe it’s just that everyone ignores or laughs at anything Dorries says, as a matter of course.

I don't make a habit of supporting Conservative English cabinet secretaries, but I do so in this case, and I deplore Labour for jumping on a “populist” bandwagon.

Rape is far too serious a crime for this petty politicking and point scoring political correctness. It might help if we could talk about it like adults.