|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 28, 2023 19:10:19 GMT
Very difficult to judge the decision today in terms of electoral prospects. I get what our centrists are saying that Corbyn not being allowed to stand ought to be a net positive with the soft Tory voters but I also think that had Starmer not created this situation in the first place the soft Tory voters Labour needs to win would not have been bothered one way or another. Blair (and Campbell 1997) would never have deliberately set out to antagonise any set of voters that they could have in their column. Yes they would have put forward their own agenda which might not be popular with the left and soft Tory leaning but they didn't give the left a reason not to vote for them in the way that Starmer has done. So a non issue becomes one that makes little difference to the Tory swing voters Labour need (remembering a lot of those were single issue brexit ones in the first place) but might make a difference to left wing voters in not voting Labour. Then if Corbyn does run as an independent this will be a constant factor during the campaign(beyond Islington North itself) and those left wing voters will be reminded of reasons why they should perhaps not be voting Labour. . Well I guess the thinking goes along the lines of they will lose some left-wing votes in urban areas, where Lab is going to pile up the votes anyway. With Humza Yousaf winning the SNP leadership, the opportunity of Lab making in-roads into the left-leaning SNP vote is now curtailed. Now in Scotland, they are chasing the same types of voters as in the red-wall (socially conservative, older, economically centre-left).
Tactically, I'm sure they have the numbers to support this approach. But long term strategically, I think alienating left-leaning voters/members is at best counter-productive, and at worst could prove fatal by splitting the left further. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Mar 28, 2023 19:17:21 GMT
IMO those posters referring to the Corbyn situation as being a non issue are completely ignoring the influence of the Tory press. If Corbyn had been allowed to stand for Lab they will have a field day come the election. Every other headline would be along the lines of Lab is no different to 2019. If you have any involvement with floating voters you will be aware that it was not Johnson who won the election but Corbyn who lost it. Anecdotal I know, but I have two friends (we meet for a natter most weeks) who have both voted Lab, LD and Con in the past and both were adamant in 2019 that they would not vote for Lab because of Corbyn. Both have now said that they are very unlikely to vote Tory in 24 and one has said that he is impressed the way Starmer has changed things around and is now likely to vote Lab. The other is still wavering but I suspect will vote LD. This echoes what I have heard from many people interviewed on TV where they detest Corbyn. Assuming Russia is still creating havoc in Ukraine or beyond, I can see the Mail headlines, "Corbyn's party would not have tried to stop Putin." Whether Corbyn is leader or just a candidate would be immaterial.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 28, 2023 19:22:51 GMT
Indeed so.
To repeat a point I made a few weeks ago - if Corbyn stands , I will not be surprised to see 20 - 30 Labour MPs - Campaign Group members - openly endorse him circa 4 weeks before Polling Day. By that time all nominations will have closed so that no further candidates could be selected - or deselected. The MPs concerned would be beyond the reach of Starmer and the NEC for the imminent GE. What could Starmer then do? Could he really disown 20 - 30 MPs almost certain to be elected? In the event of a Hung Parliament , such a group would have great leverage potentially - and would possibly make their support for a Labour-led government conditional on there being a change of Leader. Clegg forced Brown to step down in 2010.
To support any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate means automatic expulsion from the Labour Party. If anyone did this - and I think there is no chance of it happening - they will not be Labour MPs because they will not be Labour members. See what Jon Lansman, notable Corbyn supporter, said today - he compared Starmer's leadership style to Putin, but then urged Corbyn not to stand as an independent and said he wouldn't support him if he did. The left don't want to be kicked out of the party en masse. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Mar 28, 2023 19:27:26 GMT
Good analysis but I would quibble the comment about Unison not doing what its members want. Unison has always been a fairly moderate union, partly reflecting its origins. One of the three unions who merged to create it - NALGO - was not even affiliated to the Labour Party. You're probably right and clearly they are a moderate union among members as compared to Unite and RMT but difficult to untangle union politics. Getting my information from mostly left wing sources but there is a "left wing" majority on the Unison NEC but they are passing resolutions that can ignored by the officers because of the structure of the union. Of course this doesn't mean the NEC is representative of it's members but it does suggest to me that the movers and shakers will eventually move Unison to the left and I would imagine that given a lot of this is local government workers that their members will also be looking for more radical solutions to the cost of living crisis etc than they are getting at present. Another bit from the NEC meeting today is that Labour membership is probably still drifting downwards and at best stabilised- 400k with 23k in arrears but more money coming in from 115 "circle members"- those who pay more than £5k a year. Maybe not unexpected between elections and perhaps a boost likely in 18 months time at the next election campaign but a sign that Labour are heading back to the old funding streams- some like the Sainsbury donations fair enough with no obvious return wanted but many more will be wanting Formula 1 type influence. Whether the Corbyn block will have a further impact is yet to be seen, although a friend of mine resigned today (thought he'd already gone to be honest!). |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 28, 2023 19:36:57 GMT
Indeed so.
To repeat a point I made a few weeks ago - if Corbyn stands , I will not be surprised to see 20 - 30 Labour MPs - Campaign Group members - openly endorse him circa 4 weeks before Polling Day. By that time all nominations will have closed so that no further candidates could be selected - or deselected. The MPs concerned would be beyond the reach of Starmer and the NEC for the imminent GE. What could Starmer then do? Could he really disown 20 - 30 MPs almost certain to be elected? In the event of a Hung Parliament , such a group would have great leverage potentially - and would possibly make their support for a Labour-led government conditional on there being a change of Leader. Clegg forced Brown to step down in 2010.
To support any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate means automatic expulsion from the Labour Party. If anyone did this - and I think there is no chance of it happening - they will not be Labour MPs because they will not be Labour members. See what Jon Lansman, notable Corbyn supporter, said today - he compared Starmer's leadership style to Putin, but then urged Corbyn not to stand as an independent and said he wouldn't support him if he did. The left don't want to be kicked out of the party en masse. As we have seen very recently expulsions are often not permanent and tend to be reversed when expedient - Ken Livingstone and Luciana Berger come to mind. Going much further back Stafford Cripps and Aneurin Bevan were expelled from the party but returned to very senior positions. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Mar 28, 2023 19:41:45 GMT
Very difficult to judge the decision today in terms of electoral prospects. I get what our centrists are saying that Corbyn not being allowed to stand ought to be a net positive with the soft Tory voters but I also think that had Starmer not created this situation in the first place the soft Tory voters Labour needs to win would not have been bothered one way or another. Blair (and Campbell 1997) would never have deliberately set out to antagonise any set of voters that they could have in their column. Yes they would have put forward their own agenda which might not be popular with the left and soft Tory leaning but they didn't give the left a reason not to vote for them in the way that Starmer has done. So a non issue becomes one that makes little difference to the Tory swing voters Labour need (remembering a lot of those were single issue brexit ones in the first place) but might make a difference to left wing voters in not voting Labour. Then if Corbyn does run as an independent this will be a constant factor during the campaign(beyond Islington North itself) and those left wing voters will be reminded of reasons why they should perhaps not be voting Labour. Corbyn was an embarrassment. He wasn't a bad person, just completely cackhanded. Certainly not CEO of England and some of the UK plc material. Mind you, I thought he same of the blonde idiot too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traingate |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Mar 28, 2023 19:43:39 GMT
An article by Patrick Strudwick which describes my reaction to Yousaf's victory:
However, the fact remains that nearly half of the SNP members who voted were prepared to tolerate a religious homophobe as leader.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 28, 2023 19:43:51 GMT
Good analysis but I would quibble the comment about Unison not doing what its members want. Unison has always been a fairly moderate union, partly reflecting its origins. One of the three unions who merged to create it - NALGO - was not even affiliated to the Labour Party. You're probably right and clearly they are a moderate union among members as compared to Unite and RMT but difficult to untangle union politics. Getting my information from mostly left wing sources but there is a "left wing" majority on the Unison NEC but they are passing resolutions that can ignored by the officers because of the structure of the union. Of course this doesn't mean the NEC is representative of it's members but it does suggest to me that the movers and shakers will eventually move Unison to the left and I would imagine that given a lot of this is local government workers that their members will also be looking for more radical solutions to the cost of living crisis etc than they are getting at present. Another bit from the NEC meeting today is that Labour membership is probably still drifting downwards and at best stabilised- 400k with 23k in arrears but more money coming in from 115 "circle members"- those who pay more than £5k a year. Maybe not unexpected between elections and perhaps a boost likely in 18 months time at the next election campaign but a sign that Labour are heading back to the old funding streams- some like the Sainsbury donations fair enough with no obvious return wanted but many more will be wanting Formula 1 type influence. Whether the Corbyn block will have a further impact is yet to be seen, although a friend of mine resigned today (thought he'd already gone to be honest!). You may be right that the activists may try and move Unison to the left but they may well struggle to have much effect. The union is big (1.3m members) but very diverse (spread over health, local government, police civilians, higher education and various other sectors) and 70% of the membership are women. Activism is low and militancy even lower - and with multiple employers, if you want a strike you have to win a ballot on the right turnout with each. The very structure of the thing makes it difficult to get it pointed in any one direction. It is a good union at doing the basic member support work though. (Its my union, btw). |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Mar 28, 2023 19:45:38 GMT
A paper on the latest version of GPT4, where they had early access to the unrestricted version, suggests it may be showing signs of precursors of AI. For example: tool use, theory of mind, mapping, solving maths Olympiad and Fermi questions, and even has chops as a personal assistant. (Can check your calendar, coordinate with others over email, book a dinner and message others with the details). More in the Tech thread. ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/77156/thread |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 28, 2023 19:54:00 GMT
To support any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate means automatic expulsion from the Labour Party. If anyone did this - and I think there is no chance of it happening - they will not be Labour MPs because they will not be Labour members. See what Jon Lansman, notable Corbyn supporter, said today - he compared Starmer's leadership style to Putin, but then urged Corbyn not to stand as an independent and said he wouldn't support him if he did. The left don't want to be kicked out of the party en masse. As we have seen very recently expulsions are often not permanent and tend to be reversed when expedient - Ken Livingstone and Luciana Berger come to mind. Going much further back Stafford Cripps and Aneurin Bevan were expelled from the party but returned to very senior positions. Luciana Berger wasn't expelled. Livingstone was, then allowed to rejoin and then, more or less, expelled again (technically he resigned while suspended) and has not returned. I can't see Starmer letting McDonnell or the others back into the party if they did leave, hence why they won't. The Guardian quotes one unnamed left-wing MP as saying: “We’re not scared, but who wants to follow Corbyn out the door? We have constituents to represent here in parliament.” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 20:01:41 GMT
To support any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate means automatic expulsion from the Labour Party. If anyone did this - and I think there is no chance of it happening - they will not be Labour MPs because they will not be Labour members. See what Jon Lansman, notable Corbyn supporter, said today - he compared Starmer's leadership style to Putin, but then urged Corbyn not to stand as an independent and said he wouldn't support him if he did. The left don't want to be kicked out of the party en masse. As we have seen very recently expulsions are often not permanent and tend to be reversed when expedient - Ken Livingstone and Luciana Berger come to mind. Going much further back Stafford Cripps and Aneurin Bevan were expelled from the party but returned to very senior positions. He was also the unintended victim of one of the most memorable Spoonerisms ever when McDonald Hobley introduced him as "Sir Stifford Crapps". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_Hobley |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 28, 2023 20:08:08 GMT
As we have seen very recently expulsions are often not permanent and tend to be reversed when expedient - Ken Livingstone and Luciana Berger come to mind. Going much further back Stafford Cripps and Aneurin Bevan were expelled from the party but returned to very senior positions. Luciana Berger wasn't expelled. Livingstone was, then allowed to rejoin and then, more or less, expelled again (technically he resigned while suspended) and has not returned. I can't see Starmer letting McDonnell or the others back into the party if they did leave, hence why they won't. The Guardian quotes one unnamed left-wing MP as saying: “We’re not scared, but who wants to follow Corbyn out the door? We have constituents to represent here in parliament.” Luciana Berger stood against an official Labour candidate as recently as December 2019. Double standards? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Mar 28, 2023 20:10:34 GMT
Your link highlighted a couple of issues with vertical farms, that we are aware of, of course: construction costs, and energy costs, with the latter particularly difficult for vertical farms in the current situation. It added a third issue I wasn’t aware of: the amount they had been investing in robotics, which had not panned out like they hoped (they did it in part to secure tech funding). Of course, it’s possible that they sort the robotics, and energy prices fall, whereupon vertical farms become rather more viable, given they have quite a few advantages: much reduced water, pesticide and fertiliser use, can grow all year round, efficient land use since can stack layers of crops, can grow plants for pharmaceuticals, fragrances, or cosmetics as well, and can locate them near centres of population reducing transport costs and pollution etc. They may reduce construction costs too: some schemes reuse old facilities, even old air raid shelters. There is an issue in that you can only grow a certain range of crops in them currently. They aren’t suitable for grains etc., which need rather more energy. However if energy becomes more plentiful and cheap… p.s. I do like the idea of the urban thing too. (Then there’s lab meat too of course…) |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 28, 2023 20:13:33 GMT
A group of former Labour MPs acting as I have described would still have 4/5 years in Parliament as left wing Independents, and who knows what might happen to Starmer's control of the party over that period - particularly if he lacks a majority. Morover, several MPs - eg Mcdonell and Abbot - could well be serving their last Parliament anyway and have nothing to lose. I do feel tonight that I have effectively 'crossed the floor' emotionally re- Starmer. Henceforth, I shall be willing him to fail - at least to the extent of being denied a majority , and will be inclined to rejoice at any setback he faces hereafter. In a different context, he has shown himself to be every bit as much a compulsive liar as Boris Johnson.
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Mar 28, 2023 20:45:02 GMT
graham - what was Stafford Cripps expelled for?
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 28, 2023 20:52:09 GMT
graham - what was Stafford Cripps expelled for? He was expelled in 1939 for his activities as a leading advocate of a left wing Popular Front which included Communists. He was readmitted in 1945. At one time during World War 2 he was seen as a possible replacement for Churchill. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Mar 28, 2023 21:13:52 GMT
A group of former Labour MPs acting as I have described would still have 4/5 years in Parliament as left wing Independents, and who knows what might happen to Starmer's control of the party over that period - particularly if he lacks a majority. Morover, several MPs - eg Mcdonell and Abbot - could well be serving their last Parliament anyway and have nothing to lose. I do feel tonight that I have effectively 'crossed the floor' emotionally re- Starmer. Henceforth, I shall be willing him to fail - at least to the extent of being denied a majority , and will be inclined to rejoice at any setback he faces hereafter. In a different context, he has shown himself to be every bit as much a compulsive liar as Boris Johnson.
I'd "crossed the floor" some time ago and have felt there is no point me going on about Starmer on here and boring people as my views on Starmer are well known already and what will be will be. However what has been firmed up this last few months is the realisation that I cannot see myself voting Labour for a very long time now if ever. I think it's to do with the lack of pushback against Starmer's authoritarian moves (and lies) from people I used to respect- Miliband was an example today but plenty like Nandy also fit this description of going beyond the need to be "collectively responsible" in cabinet. In any event if Starmer wins (or loses) he will be now followed by someone even further right wing like Streeting or Reeves. Of course if Starmer surprises me and does great things then I will be delighted to change my mind about him and delighted for the country but there's nothing that gives me any indication he will and his legacy will be a Labour Party not fit for the purpose for which it was set up and institutionally incapable of returning to those ideals. Yes- hung parliament would be my preferred outcome with Starmer relying on SNP and independents/Green(s). |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Mar 28, 2023 21:17:16 GMT
What. A. Game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 21:27:07 GMT
Very difficult to judge the decision today in terms of electoral prospects. I get what our centrists are saying that Corbyn not being allowed to stand ought to be a net positive with the soft Tory voters but I also think that had Starmer not created this situation in the first place the soft Tory voters Labour needs to win would not have been bothered one way or another. Blair (and Campbell 1997) would never have deliberately set out to antagonise any set of voters that they could have in their column. Yes they would have put forward their own agenda which might not be popular with the left and soft Tory leaning but they didn't give the left a reason not to vote for them in the way that Starmer has done. So a non issue becomes one that makes little difference to the Tory swing voters Labour need (remembering a lot of those were single issue brexit ones in the first place) but might make a difference to left wing voters in not voting Labour. Then if Corbyn does run as an independent this will be a constant factor during the campaign(beyond Islington North itself) and those left wing voters will be reminded of reasons why they should perhaps not be voting Labour. Does Labour need these left-wing voters? They tend to do well when the Tory vote collapses, as it has now. A few thousand ultra-loyal Corbynite votes in what is likely to be the most rock-solid Labour seats anyway may not matter. Perhaps this is why Starmer is being so crap. He thinks all he needs to do to win is stop people voting Conservative. Risking a split in his own party won't do anything to harm his Tory-suppression masterplan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 21:54:46 GMT
An article by Patrick Strudwick which describes my reaction to Yousaf's victory: However, the fact remains that nearly half of the SNP members who voted were prepared to tolerate a religious homophobe as leader. Depressing. Perhaps they also/instead didn't want a Muslim as leader? Are there any stats on the socio-demographics and beliefs of a typical member (as opposed to one of its voters)? Although the party brand has been unwaveringly progressive in recent years it may not be the same story underneath, and it's not unusual for a party's policies and politicians to be at odds with its grassroots (see Blair, Cameron, Starmer...). I'd also assume (perhaps wrongly?) that nationalists are more likely to be racist, homophobic etc? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 28, 2023 21:57:03 GMT
Very difficult to judge the decision today in terms of electoral prospects. I get what our centrists are saying that Corbyn not being allowed to stand ought to be a net positive with the soft Tory voters but I also think that had Starmer not created this situation in the first place the soft Tory voters Labour needs to win would not have been bothered one way or another. Blair (and Campbell 1997) would never have deliberately set out to antagonise any set of voters that they could have in their column. Yes they would have put forward their own agenda which might not be popular with the left and soft Tory leaning but they didn't give the left a reason not to vote for them in the way that Starmer has done. So a non issue becomes one that makes little difference to the Tory swing voters Labour need (remembering a lot of those were single issue brexit ones in the first place) but might make a difference to left wing voters in not voting Labour. Then if Corbyn does run as an independent this will be a constant factor during the campaign(beyond Islington North itself) and those left wing voters will be reminded of reasons why they should perhaps not be voting Labour. Does Labour need these left-wing voters? They tend to do well when the Tory vote collapses, as it has now. A few thousand ultra-loyal Corbynite votes in what is likely to be the most rock-solid Labour seats anyway may not matter. Perhaps this is why Starmer is being so crap. He thinks all he needs to do to win is stop people voting Conservative. Risking a split in his own party won't do anything to harm his Tory-suppression masterplan. Yes, Labour do need the left-wing vote. Labour, like the Conservatives is a broad church party, getting votes from a fairly wide coalition of voters. Do not assume that all left-wing labour voters live in safe Labour seats. This question is not even particularly about Corbyn. When eithor of the two main parties loses part of it's coalition, it is in trouble as the tories are currently finding out. Even if Starmer wins a sizeable majority in 2024, still yet to be seen, but, given the state of the government, should happen, but, what to the future? With part of the coalition that should be easy picking for Labour gone - or even split from the party - the odds of winning against a revitalised tory part in 2029 or beyond is diminished. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 22:00:45 GMT
As we have seen very recently expulsions are often not permanent and tend to be reversed when expedient - Ken Livingstone and Luciana Berger come to mind. Going much further back Stafford Cripps and Aneurin Bevan were expelled from the party but returned to very senior positions. Luciana Berger wasn't expelled. Livingstone was, then allowed to rejoin and then, more or less, expelled again (technically he resigned while suspended) and has not returned. I can't see Starmer letting McDonnell or the others back into the party if they did leave, hence why they won't. The Guardian quotes one unnamed left-wing MP as saying: “We’re not scared, but who wants to follow Corbyn out the door? We have constituents to represent here in parliament.” On the cusp of a historic election victory no member of that party is going to commit career suicide by announcing their loyalty to some old man with a beard! We mustn't forget these people are POLITICIANS. They all fall in line the moment they smell power and/or money. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 28, 2023 22:09:23 GMT
Luciana Berger wasn't expelled. Livingstone was, then allowed to rejoin and then, more or less, expelled again (technically he resigned while suspended) and has not returned. I can't see Starmer letting McDonnell or the others back into the party if they did leave, hence why they won't. The Guardian quotes one unnamed left-wing MP as saying: “We’re not scared, but who wants to follow Corbyn out the door? We have constituents to represent here in parliament.” On the cusp of a historic election victory no member of that party is going to commit career suicide by announcing their loyalty to some old man with a beard! We mustn't forget these people are POLITICIANS. They all fall in line the moment they smell power and/or money. In fairness they might also be trying to preserve some left-wing element in the party. Starmer keeps suggesting they leave, so following Graham's suggested course of action would be to do what he wants. Logically, from their point of view, the sensible thing is to stay put. The hard-left is not my wing of the party, but I would prefer as broad a church as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Mar 28, 2023 22:13:47 GMT
Rafwan I am sure you can reference that if you can't would you like to retract as it's total bollocks. I have never repeat never said Corbyn was antisemitic. My clear recollection is that you had Corbyn down as facilitating antisemitism. If I am wrong in this (diminished brain cells, etc), or if it is not what you meant or intended, then yes, unconditional retraction and abject apologies. I am very sorry. I do believe that unsubstantiated claims about antisemitism are morally repulsive. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 28, 2023 23:02:15 GMT
On the cusp of a historic election victory no member of that party is going to commit career suicide by announcing their loyalty to some old man with a beard! We mustn't forget these people are POLITICIANS. They all fall in line the moment they smell power and/or money. In fairness they might also be trying to preserve some left-wing element in the party. Starmer keeps suggesting they leave, so following Graham's suggested course of action would be to do what he wants. Logically, from their point of view, the sensible thing is to stay put. The hard-left is not my wing of the party, but I would prefer as broad a church as possible. But if they do not declare support for Corbyn until after nominations have closed, Starmer would be stuck with them for the next Parliament. Moreover, if he fails to gain a substantial majority, he is likely to need their votes. Given the bitterness he has engendered, there can be no guarantee that such support would be forthcoming at the time he needs it. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold.' |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Mar 28, 2023 23:23:35 GMT
RafwanThat's fine no harm done . I have never said that Corbyn is antisemitic, I don't think he is , I do however feel and evidence supports this that some anti-Semitic individuals didn't feel particularly uncomfortable in the Labour party while he was leader. This doesn't exactly amount to facilitating antisemitism but it's not the robust removal that might have been hoped for either. This is a subject of concern to me as my own grandfather came to the U.K. from North Africa as an unaccompanied teenage refugee and was Jewish. Of course under the current regime he would have been deemed an illegal immigrant and deported. It's extraordinary to consider that Victorian England with the Marquess of Salisbury as Prime minister was more enlightened than the current shambles.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 28, 2023 23:37:28 GMT
It was. Out for dinner tonight so had to watch it on catchup. I had hoped we might get a draw with Spain, but 2-0 was stupendous. There are idiots who equate sporting success with political leadership (c/f the nonsense about 1966 in England) so Yousaf will be pleased that they might grant him some positivity from the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 28, 2023 23:37:47 GMT
This morning news of 17% food inflation. But at the same time a farmers representative said prices paid to UK farmers are overall falling! Major contributor to the inflation is apparently rising price of sugar from brazil. (whatever happened to the Uk sugar beet industry?) It seems difficult to reconcile news of Uk farmers going out of business even as general prices rise. However i can see how this might happen given supermarkets dominate Uk food distribution. Uk farmers likely do not have a system whereby they could export food and enjoy world market prices but can only realistically sell into the Uk market. So supermarkets constantly push down on prices they are willing to pay here, even as they pay more for imports. This would also seem to make sense of the earlier item from Belgian tomato growers, who said they had plenty of tomatoes even as UK shops had empty shelves. it was just the UK wasnt willing to pay their price. Such a policy can only in the end lead to UK farmers giving up, so we import more of the expensive food. No shortage of tomatoes round here. Perhaps it's just where you live? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 28, 2023 23:40:09 GMT
Governmentr has announced it intends to chuck afghan refugees out of hotels it is paying for and make them homeless. Then responsibility for housing will fall on local authorities. Who might or might not be able to help. Not sure the intention is to leave them living on the streest, but perhaps to get them off the books as refugees in hotels and onto the books of general homeless lumped in with Uk citizens. One of our local well recognised homeless recently died, leading to the laying of flowers on his favourite bench. I guess our local tory MP thought we needed some replacements. It does seem wrong that illegal migrants are given free hotel rooms while we have homeless British people living on the streets. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Mar 28, 2023 23:50:02 GMT
Speaking as a Somerset resident, I'm not quite sure why the place is taking such flak. And whilst 'Hot Fuzz' was indeed largely filmed in Wells, it is actually set in the fictional town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. The film deliberately removes all views of Wells Cathedral as part of this premise. Here's what you missed. Just joshing! I like Wells and that whole part of the world in fact, been there a few times and the cathedral is amazing. Taking a walk up Glastonbury tor for the view also another fun thing to do round there. Glastonbury was where I saw the biggest pub brawl I'd ever seen. In the middle of the day too! It was so bad I called the police. |
|
