UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs

7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.

 

[Strix454]

Despite it seeming challenging Burnham will begin a bunch of even dumber things than Keir. He'll repeat Keir's claims about having mandates, talk about decisive decisions needing to be made and do utter lunacy

He really seems set on trying to bring back the coal, steel and railway economy. And trying to make it 1970 again through nationalizations. Sterling crisis seems likely if he does what he seems to want.

 

[thefreshmaker]

I'm not saying they shouldn't run, I am saying this was not the one to do your big branch out. This was a referendum on Starmer and Burnham was the "Fuck that guy" option.

That's precisely why this election is the best to put your hat in.

The result doesn't matter - it's only effect is to confirm whether Labour has a leadership change between uncharismatic establishment suit and charismatic establishment suit. There's no loss to throwing your hat, you aren't spoiling anything.

Burnham's decisive win indicates that Labour supporters aren't so much done with the party as they are with the man who is currently in charge.

Yes and no - it's Makerfield, not a normal election or GE. You can also take away that it's just the Mancunian Man being popular with Mancunians. I don't think it means much to the country as a whole, particularly when Andy won't be seeing only Manchester voters in national polls.

I suspect that removing that element would have seen a much closer Reform vote share.

I also suspect that a lot of the Restore vote share was killed in the final seconds at the ballot box, the energy being replaced with thoughts of "okay but if I vote Restore it's a vote for Burnham". Wouldn't mean a Restore wave, but maybe an additional 2-3% their way.

 

[Overly Serious]

It's 7% if you round to the nearest number and 0.84 is a lot nearer to 1 than it is to 0.

So Question Time in their by-election special invited on parties that got less than 1% but not the party that actually came third.

This is great. Restore got a lot of experience in campaigning, it provided a huge opportunity for its supporters to network and meet each other, it's going to be even more untenable to exclude them from the media, it creates pressure on Reform and Conservatives to move towards actual Nationalism, it doesn't give Reform material for "you split the vote" because Reform would have lost anyway. And this was a very atypical by-election in that it was done as a way to oust Starmer.

This is more than enough for Restore to go on the attack with.

EDIT: In an image:

 

[MidUSA]

This is great. Restore got a lot of experience in campaigning, it provided a huge opportunity for its supporters to network and meet each other, it's going to be even more untenable to exclude them from the media, it creates pressure on Reform and Conservatives to move towards actual Nationalism,

The campaigning experience and the visibility is the big wins.

People saying things like 'it wasn't the right election to start with' are silly. With that attitude, there will never come the perfect time to start running campaigns, and you won't go from nothing to majority in one go. (although they kinda did that in Greater Yarmouth)

One negative I could see is potential dissapointment from the party activists. Many were probably expecting at least 10%, hoping for over 20%, and some might even have believed they could win outright. This result would be deflating for them, and might be a hit to the enthusiasm that's been one of Restores big edge in this campaign.

All the talk of overachieving the polls does take some of the shine off of a remarkable result for such a new, unestablished party. (I'm a bit in the same boat as I got swept away by the hype and thought they'd pass two digits, and would not have been surprised to see them at 15-20% or more)

 

[Heinrich Maneuver]

Burnham wins fairly easily

What about another leadership challenger, like the rumours around Al Carns? Especially with all this muh russia shit and the huge Defence budget issue.


As for Restore/Reform, I suspect some of the Reform votes will be 'we voted for Reform/Kenyon for this election, but a GE would be Restore' tactical voting. I did expect the % to be higher given the horrific attacks between the by-election announcement and now but swings and roundabouts and the total destruction of the Tories is satisfying (even if they are now all in Reform)

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

What about another leadership challenger, like the rumours around Al Carns? Especially with all this muh russia shit and the huge Defence budget issue.

There'll be other challengers, I didn't mention Wes for example. I don't believe there's anyone besides Burnham with a credible route to victory but Labour has some murky politics.

It's entirely possible the Blairite faction is going to do a one-two disposing of Keir and beating Burnham in one go. But if they are then there'll be some serious string pulling done to carry that out and if they do that they need to have a plan to wrangle the rebellious party members.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

Restore need to be selling themselves on the Rape Report a lot more, how they got it done when no-one else would. I know the media have done their best to ignore it, but it's a huge achievement.

 

[Smyrna]

Now the fun starts.

I honestly do not see a leadership contest as a fait accompli for Burnham, unless Starmer changes his mind on running. Within the last month, Burnham has u-turned on just about every policy position he held; he has now promised to stick to Reeves' fiscal rules, he has ruled out any immediate attempt to rejoin the EU, he even u-turned on trannies being allowed to use the wrong bathroom.

So what exactly is he offering? Stamerism with slightly more of a human touch? That won't win him the leadership by itself. And of course, if Starmer really wants to hold on, he will have to turn it into a knife fight. He will attack Burnham's record in government (anyone remember Mid-Staffordshire NHS? You will soon.) He will attack the fact that Burnham cut and ran to Manchester when Corbyn became leader. He will attack Burnham's naked opportunism, his plotting at Conference last year and his two attempts to engineer a by-election for him to return (first Gorton, then Makerfield).

If Burnham wins, he will be tarnished. I agree with @Morethanabitfoolish that he would almost certainly fill his Cabinet with dross like Rayner - I don't think Healey would come back, and McFadden may be chucked as well. Another problem Burnham has is that the more the public sees of him, the less they like him. YouGov's approval tracker saw him go from +4 (34-30) to -11 (30-41) over the course of this campaign. What happens when he really gets put under scrutiny?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Within the last month, Burnham has u-turned on just about every policy position he held; he has now promised to stick to Reeves' fiscal rules, he has ruled out any immediate attempt to rejoin the EU, he even u-turned on trannies being allowed to use the wrong bathroom.

The latter two along with some you did not mention were exclusively to court Makerfield. They'll be dropped the second he is in position to compete for the leadership.

 

[Negative_Orgones]

Is this the most controlled opposition thing anyone has ever said?

 

[AssignedEva]

I honestly do not see a leadership contest as a fait accompli for Burnham, unless Starmer changes his mind on running.

Andy supposedly has had to tell his backers not to resign from Cabinet today to try and force Starmer out. Word is that Starmer's getting actively pressured to just step down without a leadership challenge.
I'm kind of rooting for Starmer to tell everyone he's calling a press conference to announce he's stepping down, then go on camera and call a snap election out of spite. Unfortunately he's not interesting enough to do that.

Within the last month, Burnham has u-turned on just about every policy position he held; he has now promised to stick to Reeves' fiscal rules, he has ruled out any immediate attempt to rejoin the EU, he even u-turned on trannies being allowed to use the wrong bathroom.

I particularly enjoyed the 24 hour u-turn on "I'm going to pay the WASPI women" to "I'm not going to pay the WASPI women" to "I'm not going to pay the WASPI women, but I'll make sure they get something" to "Stop asking me about the WASPI women, look, I'm promising to bring back HS2 to Manchester". He's a man of many unforced errors.

So what exactly is he offering? Stamerism with slightly more of a human touch? That won't win him the leadership by itself. And of course, if Starmer really wants to hold on, he will have to turn it into a knife fight. He will attack Burnham's record in government (anyone remember Mid-Staffordshire NHS? You will soon.) He will attack the fact that Burnham cut and ran to Manchester when Corbyn became leader. He will attack Burnham's naked opportunism, his plotting at Conference last year and his two attempts to engineer a by-election for him to return (first Gorton, then Makerfield).

I have been mystified at the people who hate Keir Starmer but love Andy Burnham. Mancunians who liked him as mayor aside, I don't quite understand what contemptible positions that Keir has which Andy doesn't. He really is just Keir in a flat cap and an additional helping of "screw over London to benefit the North".
The hype around Andy will guarantee he gets the nominations for a leadership challenge. The hype train will win him the leadership challenge once it's started, unless Keir actually manages to derail that hype train. But it's mostly on vibes and Andy being the "Not Keir Starmer" candidate MPs feel comfortable rallying around, I don't think it has very much to do with policy positions at all.

 

[teriyakiburns]

He really seems set on trying to bring back the coal, steel and railway economy.

If fucking only. That would be smart. No, Burnham wants the strikes and the nationalisation, but he's still wed to the same technocratic, high-tech services economy shite everyone since the war has been chasing. We won't get industry returning under Burnham. We'll get more windmills and more green mandates, more immigration, less money, and a rigged referendum on re-joining the EU. That said, I'll forgive a lot of he kicks mad ed into touch... but I suspect he'll promote the man instead.

 

[Smyrna]

The latter two along with some you did not mention were exclusively to court Makerfield. They'll be dropped the second he is in position to compete for the leadership.

Very likely, and Starmer will seize upon that 360-degree turn like a tramp on chips.

---------------------------

UPDATE: Guido quoting Starmer from this morning - "If there is a contest, just to be clear, yes, I will run, I will stand, and I've said repeatedly, I'm not going to walk away from that.”

 

[teriyakiburns]

UPDATE: Guido quoting Starmer from this morning - "If there is a contest, just to be clear, yes, I will run, I will stand, and I've said repeatedly, I'm not going to walk away from that.”

According to the BBC, the full exchange went thusly:

Asked if he's going to stand in any possible leadership election, he says "there isn't one at the moment" and that doing so would send "the country into chaos".

But he goes on to say - as we reported earlier: "If there is a contest, then yes I will run, I will stand, and I've said repeatedly I'm not going to walk away from that."

I wonder how he'd feel if he hadn't had breakfast this morning?

edit:

This man is delusional.

 

[KeeKeeCooch]

I have been mystified at the people who hate Keir Starmer but love Andy Burnham. Mancunians who liked him as mayor aside, I don't quite understand what contemptible positions that Keir has which Andy doesn't.

I'm not sure on this but do we ever get localised maps of who people voted for and in what specific areas? I'd be interested to see demographics, I can see a lot of the middle class whites of Makersfield voting for Labour still.

@teriyakiburns Idk if he's delusional, isn't Manchester, or is that Birmingham? over run by muzzies and faggots now? I can see a Green Mayor winning.

 

[AssignedEva]

UPDATE: Guido quoting Starmer from this morning - "If there is a contest, just to be clear, yes, I will run, I will stand, and I've said repeatedly, I'm not going to walk away from that.”

Meanwhile Andy Burnham's been briefing The Independent that he wants to be Prime Minister by September, and if Keir doesn't step down soon it'll be his fault they lose the Manchester mayoral election. It lead with this admittedly amusing photo of Andy stood between Count Binface and Rob the Fox

although they didn't manage to also get Howling Laud Hope, the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate.

I wonder how he'd feel if he hadn't had breakfast this morning?

It's Keir's autistic rules lawyering at play. There's no leadership challenge until the threshold for a leadership challenge has been met, and as that's not happened yet there's no leadership challenge. Arguably that thick-headedness is what saw off Wes Streeting, because Wes tried to bluff that he could get 81 backers so Keir should step down, and Keir just said "go on then".
It's rumoured that Keir's offering some supporters to Wes for a leadership bid, in order to split the not-Keir-Starmer vote. Is Wes dumb enough to run thinking he'll win, or is he slimy enough that he'll accept being the fall guy in the hopes of squirming his way back into Cabinet? Hard to call. Keir does have some level of understanding of how a "Not Keir Starmer" leadership race would work, I guess, as he became Labour leader as a result of being Not Jeremy Corbyn, and he became Prime Minister as a result of Labour being Not The Conservatives.

I'm not sure on this but do we ever get localised maps of who people voted for and in what specific areas? I'd be interested to see demographics, I can see a lot of the middle class whites of Makersfield voting for Labour still.

Websites like Electoral Calculus try and guess, but we don't get officially released results by ward, just constituency level.

 

[thefreshmaker]

Is this the most controlled opposition thing anyone has ever said?

Farage is on the left of most Labour voters when it comes to the most important issues for voters at the moment. Lowe is left of most Reform voters.

I suppose Farage could ask voters what they want rather than keep parroting the same line as Starmer on how being English means having a Yoruba father and an Indian mother and going to mosque every day but loving "British values" such as the curriculum of a liberal arts degree.

I particularly enjoyed the 24 hour u-turn on "I'm going to pay the WASPI women" to "I'm not going to pay the WASPI women" to "I'm not going to pay the WASPI women, but I'll make sure they get something" to "Stop asking me about the WASPI women, look, I'm promising to bring back HS2 to Manchester". He's a man of many unforced errors.

The Starmer/Burnham question is essentially over whether you want someone who will have the most incredibly stupid statement/position, drive it to within an inch of the finish line, and then u-turn for maximum damage or someone who will turn with the breeze.

Meanwhile Andy Burnham's been briefing The Independent that he wants to be Prime Minister by September, and if Keir doesn't step down soon it'll be his fault they lose the Manchester mayoral election

Wouldn't be surprised if they vote for Burnham as "our guy" in Parliament/to be PM and then for Reform in the Mayoral election. Much less of a Mancunian candidate issue there. I doubt it though.

 

[Symbol of the Chud]

Watching the Indian Bot Accounts on X still trying to frame things as Restore splitting the vote when Reform was so dogshit at being appealing that they could've had literally every other vote cast and still lost is very funny. How long now until Nige bails now, do you think? The faggot has made a political career out of torpedoing right wing parties entirely.
I still remember first finding out about reform, and I thought maybe it could have potential and then I immediately saw a black as charcoal nigger on one of their political leaflets.

 

[Smyrna]

As regards to Restore's performance, it is on one hand slightly disappointing - it would have been nice to breach the psychological barrier of 10% - but keeping the deposit at the first time of asking is a real accomplishment and they did better than the Tories, Greens and Lib Dems combined and doubled. They resisted the squeeze quite well.

Compare and contrast to Reform's first by-election (as Reform*), which was in Hartlepool in 2021. The Brexit Party achieved 25% in that seat at the previous GE, so it was obviously natural territory for them, but there was also a squeeze narrative involving Labour and the Tories. How well did they actually do? They got 1% and were beaten by the Heritage Party, a UKIP splinter.

*Yes, I am excluding the Peterborough by-election of 2019 where the Brexit Party nearly won. I do not believe that it would be a sensible like-for-like comparison because of the overwhelming influence of our ongoing failure to actually leave the EU.

 

[AssignedEva]

How long now until Nige bails now, do you think?

He was pretty much already hinting to Nick Ferrari last week that he'd be walking away before the General Election, insisting he doesn't care about being Prime Minister and "someone better might come along" in the next couple of years. He handed over ownership back in February.
Nige wants to be the loud mouthed opposition, he doesn't actually want to do anything. It's why he never bothered turning up as an MEP, and why he rarely turns up as an MP. He didn't expect to win Brexit, he'd already been preparing his second wind grift of "the vote was so close, we need to do another referendum". Boris had a similar playbook, they were betting on it being a narrow loss.