|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 27, 2023 21:57:08 GMT
To all, I understand that a comment of mine from a couple of days ago caused a bit of a kerfuffle. I have been asked to err on the side of caution, so here goes - I apologise if the term I used for the 'travelling community' caused offence to anyone. To me it is on a par with the vernacular terms for Londoner, or someone from Newcastle or Liverpool or Australia for instance. I not specifying what those are because although I believe they are in common use and not pejorative I suppose I might be out of touch on that too. It does get difficult to keep up. It reminds me of a story I've told before about when I was in the NHS and asked to point out a particular person. I said "She's the one who usually wears a green dress". The chap I was speaking to looked blank, and I went through contortions describing her height, approximate age and so on - everything but her complexion because I was trying to be PC. Eventually he got who I meant and said "Oh! You mean the bl*ck girl!" NB I'm using the asterisk because though it appears that it was ok to say that at the time, about 10 years ago, I don't know if it's changed again. It would be helpful if the Guardian would publish a list of this week's euphemisms. You are being disingenuous there in pretending this happened because usage changes over the time. The phrase you used was always derogatory and understood as such even 50 years ago (I remember), and you followed it with a generalisation about that entire community. I don't think you are stupid and I think you know all that perfectly well. It is in the same category as a whole bunch of other descriptions of various groups which were commonly used in the 1970s and before (again I remember) but which always carried an insulting/dismissive connotation. I am sure you can imagine the ones I mean. Best avoid all of those. Well I really don't want to go on about this, but as I said (but to make it clearer) to me it's analogous to (apologies if any of these are no longer acceptable) - Cockney, Geordie, Scouser, Aussie, Brummie and so on. Just a vernacular word to describe a group of people. Possibly mildly derogatory if the person saying it is not in that group, but hardly warranting hysteria (IMO). I actually don't know which words you mean from the 1970s and before unless it's to do with other nationalities or races which I do try to avoid because people (often not in that group) are so sensitive. I do think people are a bit thin-skinned nowadays. Every time we lose a Test Match to the Aussies and try to make excuses they call us 'whinging Poms' but it's all in good humour. I believe that bl*ck people in America call white people 'honkys'. So what? I don't know whether the French still call us 'rosbifs' as I was taught at school but I thought it funny then and still do. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 27, 2023 22:00:40 GMT
Interesting stuff here on days lost at work from sickness from the ONS. As expected, after a decade and a half of decline, since the pandemic, sick leave has risen to hit record highs. Notably, this has not reversed in 2022, but instead kept rising sharply. move from prediction to reality. Could part of it be that people worked from home during lockdown and rather enjoyed it, so if ordered back to work magically fell ill with minor illness? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 27, 2023 22:05:58 GMT
Labour (Labfur?) have held the Swansea local by election. LibDems got over 30% from nowhere which obviously hit the Labour and Tory percentage.
Baker, Mair (Lab) - 485 - 53.5% (-25.7%)
Burton, Dan (LibDem) - 274 - 30.2% (+30.2%)
Davies, Craig (Green) - 42 - 4.6% (+4.6%)
Griffths-Warlow, Ioan Macsen (Plaid) - 34 - 3.8% (+3.8%)
Harry, Jake (Con) - 71 - 7.8% (-14%)
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 27, 2023 22:09:00 GMT
I think any model that shows the SNP gaining an MP is a little suspect in current circumstances
Whether there is anything of this affair that becomes public knowledge in time for rebuilding prior to the UK GE is another area of uncertainty. However, anyone currently projecting, from current circumstances, that the SNP will hold most of their MP seats at the next UK GE may be interested in the extraordinarily discounted price I am offering to sell the Erskine Bridge for. Hmm. I seems to recall that there have been past SNP scandals which however failed to damage their vote share, as some thought they might at the time. Also the fact they have remained popular through thick and thin far longer than a lab or con government tends to last in England. I attribute this to SNP having a USP of both Scottish independences (for those who like that), and to uniquely be concerned with Scottish best interest as opposed to English interest (which very obviously the scottish branches of lab and con are not). |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 27, 2023 22:31:26 GMT
I'm not sure how you can conclude that she doesn't advocate a hierarchy of racism; she is clear that in her view black people experience racism, Jews and Travellers do not, in which she is demonstrably wrong, as I am sure you will know. The issue seems to be entirely about the definition of the word racism, not whether or not various groups suffer discrimination. I would understand racism to mean discrimination based upon obvious physical atributes. The most obvious is usually skin colour, determinable at long distance by eye. There might be a certain look associated with someone Irish or ethnically jewish, but either might look no different to the average white citizen. You might be able to tell someone was irish if you speak to them, probably rather less likely to tell if they are Jewish. The typical London jew is very likely indistinguishable from the typical white non jewish Londoner. So allegations of discrimination against jews cannot be based upon physical racial characteristics. If racism is not defined by physical attributes, then discrimination against someone French could be an example, because they are french. And so when a government makes a law which specifically gives fewer rights to someone who is French than someone who is english, then this must be racial discrimination. The UK government is therefore massively racist in most of its dealings. Both major political parties are therefore massively racist, and the main targets are not jews or Irish or indeed travellers. Labour needs to suspend its entire body who support eg immimgration controls. If you use nationality as the defining characteristic for racism.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 27, 2023 22:39:52 GMT
You are being disingenuous there in pretending this happened because usage changes over the time. The phrase you used was always derogatory and understood as such even 50 years ago (I remember), and you followed it with a generalisation about that entire community. I don't think you are stupid and I think you know all that perfectly well. It is in the same category as a whole bunch of other descriptions of various groups which were commonly used in the 1970s and before (again I remember) but which always carried an insulting/dismissive connotation. I am sure you can imagine the ones I mean. Best avoid all of those. Not sure whether you mean black or traveller? Two common english words. I'm gay. The gay community defused many words used abusively including that one by claiming ownership. yep, so what? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 27, 2023 22:52:18 GMT
Interesting stuff here on days lost at work from sickness from the ONS. As expected, after a decade and a half of decline, since the pandemic, sick leave has risen to hit record highs. Notably, this has not reversed in 2022, but instead kept rising sharply. well so what? if you spend a couple of years telling people if they suspect they are ill, to take time off, then dont be surprised if you create a change in attitudes to whether its morally good or bad to keep working if you feel a bit unwell. This seems to be one of the unfortunate hidden costs of imposing lockdown on the Uk, you have created a nation which now takes more time off for the same illness. Its likely that a time series extending further back will show other periods when the trend reversed. Its also true that the proportion of old people in the Uk is rising. Obviously days lost to sickness doesnt apply to pensioners, who get most illness, but it will depend on the proportions of people at the top end of working age. As with deaths numbers, you cannot meaningfully take a national average number but need to look at absences for given age groups and see if they have changed. What is really happening will be hidden by not doing this. I seem to recall we saw a rise in cardiovascular. Which smacks of untreated heart disease, caused by closing down the NHS as part of general lockdown. So just imagine how much worse these losses were when people were ordered not to go to work during lockdown. Its good you are concerned over losses now, but you seem oblivious to the state imposed damage caused by lockdown. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 28, 2023 0:01:02 GMT
Indeed! The problem for the SNP is that so much of the opposition comments and reporting carries a lot of innuendo (unsurprisingly) rather than simply factual matters. None of us know what precise allegations of criminal activity are being investigated, how long it will continue, whether any charges are finally brought, and what they would be, if any.
Whether there is anything of this affair that becomes public knowledge in time for rebuilding prior to the UK GE is another area of uncertainty. However, anyone currently projecting, from current circumstances, that the SNP will hold most of their MP seats at the next UK GE may be interested in the extraordinarily discounted price I am offering to sell the Erskine Bridge for. Hmm. I seems to recall that there have been past SNP scandals which however failed to damage their vote share, as some thought they might at the time. Also the fact they have remained popular through thick and thin far longer than a lab or con government tends to last in England. I attribute this to SNP having a USP of both Scottish independences (for those who like that), and to uniquely be concerned with Scottish best interest as opposed to English interest (which very obviously the scottish branches of lab and con are not).
This case is odd, because it is (according to the little information that is in the public domain) about how SNP funds were used, not about the misappropriation of public funds.
Most people might imagine that the very high profile police investigation, and the fevered media coverage must mean that something more sinister is involved. Maybe there is? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, but VI depends on perception - and that is driven by the degree of media attention.
Consequently, that folk who have voted SNP may have concerns as to how they should cast their next vote is perfectly understandable. Similarly, the lack of transparency within the party (as opposed to the government) and the seeming incompetence in handling its financial affairs, may make some consider that - unless it is reformed - they might prefer to be in another indy party is also understandable.
Without knowing the outcome of the current police investigations, predicting future VI is total speculation. If no charges were to be brought, then one might envisage a wave of sympathy for the SNP and enhanced VI. If really serious charges are brought against a range of SNP politicians then one could see a level of outrage that could be very damaging.
My point was simply that all the SNP can do at the moment is to reform its internal procedures, and await the outcome of whatever transpires from the investigation. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 3:30:12 GMT
mercianIf you are really serious about not using offensive words, can I give you a little tip If you need to preface a word with not sure if I'm allowed to say this or 'hope that's still an acceptable term' it's almost always best not to say it Alternatively Google the word first to see if it is offensive, in this case you would have found very quickly it was offensive Really don't want to see more people leave this site when just a little consideration and reflection would mean the situation never needed to arise in the first place
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 4:06:11 GMT
Despite all the attempts to make issues such as the trans debate front and Centre, this issue is much more concerning for most people
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 5:35:26 GMT
If you are really serious about not using offensive words, can I give you a little tip If you need to preface a word with not sure if I'm allowed to say this or 'hope that's still an acceptable term' it's almost always best not to say it I suspect someone was seeking to poke fun at the absurdity of political correctness and every few years having to change the words we use. I suspect Shakespeare used plenty of not politically correct words, quite deliberately. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 5:42:58 GMT
If you are really serious about not using offensive words, can I give you a little tip If you need to preface a word with not sure if I'm allowed to say this or 'hope that's still an acceptable term' it's almost always best not to say it I suspect someone was seeking to poke fun at the absurdity of political correctness and every few years having to change the words we use. I suspect Shakespeare used plenty of not politically correct words, quite deliberately. Hilarious...I expect Romanies/travellers subject to racist abuse appreciate the subtlety of it... |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 5:46:56 GMT
Latest techne
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Apr 28, 2023 6:08:02 GMT
A recent article by Starmer in The Economist in which he outlines what he stands for and what his plans are. This may be of interest as one of the major criticisms of him is that he lacks definition. I realise forum members may not have an Economist account so I have included some quotes. www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/26/sir-keir-starmer-on-starmerism"Sir Keir offers his own definition of Starmerism. It brackets him with other centre-left leaders who are seeking to revive the idea of “active” government in response to climate change and the plight of post-industrial towns. There are two distinguishing elements. The first is an administrative critique: more than being too large or too small, the British state is simply ineffective. The answer is to align all government activity around five “missions”, to be pursued over two terms of a Labour government. “Starmerism is as much about the ‘how’ as the ‘what’,” says Sir Keir." The state is ineffective, Sir Keir argues, because it is both over-centralised in Whitehall and siloed between government departments. Worse still is a culture of short-termism and meagre ambition. The “missions”—covering growth, the National Health Service (nhs), decarbonisation, crime and education—will come with single audacious targets, such as halving serious violent crime and achieving the fastest sustained growth in the g7. They will serve to triage all other policies. “Are we going to do a or b?” says Sir Keir. “If the answer is it helps with that mission, then the answer is ‘yes’. If the answer is it doesn’t, then the answer’s ‘no’.” Sue Gray, a former Whitehall official hired by the party, has been tasked with putting the missions into practice. But her appointment still requires official approval. Colleagues say he regards cultural change as more important than reorganisations, and rarely has a preconceived idea of reform. “He’s not iconoclastic; he doesn’t go around saying I’m going to smash things up,” says one colleague. Others describe a “Merkel-like” tendency to hold back from decisions until the case for a certain course is overwhelming, before implementing it aggressively. “There is very little banter or chit-chat. He will go around the table at the shadow cabinet and go: ‘What are you doing to deliver this? What are you doing to deliver this?” says another colleague. The second strand of Starmerism is an embrace of what Janet Yellen, America’s treasury secretary, has called “modern supply-side economics”. Social democracy cannot be done on a shoestring. Britain’s sluggish economy is undermining the welfare state which Labour prides itself on having built. The Labour leader’s answer is to focus on expanding the productive capacity of the economy—by streamlining the planning regime, by improving labour-market participation, by softening the impact of Brexit and so on. One goal predominates. “Economic growth is the absolute foundational stone for everything,” Sir Keir says. Above all, that means offering a stable environment after a decade of political turmoil (which “makes for great political cartoons; for the economy and investment it is a disaster.”) He says he is “absolutely in lockstep” with Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor. Starmerism has a strong emphasis on stakeholderism: businesses, charities and wonks will be deeply enmeshed in policymaking and delivery. Sir Keir and Ms Reeves have met over 1,000 business leaders in a “smoked-salmon offensive”, according to his office. The point is not just to fix the party’s image “but to model how we would work in government”, he says. The centrepiece of Labour’s economic agenda is a “green” industrial strategy, comprising £28bn per year in capital expenditure and the creation of a state-owned energy operator. It is inspired by America’s Inflation Reduction Act, which includes a vast package of green subsidies. Does Britain attempting to go toe-to-toe with America not risk a return to the botched industrial strategies of the past? Sir Keir says the programme would aim to release “private investment of many times the amount that we’re putting in” and would, for example, target critical growth stages in a company’s development. He stresses that government must not “suck up” the role of business. Labour, says Sir Keir, will change regulations to permit onshore wind farms and accelerate their connection to the national grid. “The role of government is to knock those impediments out of the way,” he says. As for confronting nimbyism and expanding housing supply, an area where the Tories have conspicuously fallen short: “I think we have to take this on,” he says. “It will require tough decisions.” The biggest question that dogs Labour is how much it is willing to spend, and by extension to tax, to improve public services. In Middlesbrough Sir Keir met a group of nursing students who, between selfies with the Labour leader, challenged him on low pay; typically, he made no commitments. “There is always the temptation with public services to think that if you put more money in the top, you necessarily get a better outcome,” he says. “You don’t get fundamentally different outcomes if you’re not prepared to do the change-and-reform bit as well.” Outsourcing and private provision to fix nhs backlogs are back in favour; that was anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s predecessor. The health service must shift to prevention and greater digitalisation to be sustainable. There will be internal opposition to any public-service reform, he admits. “Many people will say ‘no, no, no, leave it as it is.’ Always the wrong answer.” If Britons want European-style public services, don’t they need to accept taxes to match? (Britain’s tax burden is forecast to hit a post-war high of 37.7% of gdp in 2027, but it will still be below western European averages.) Sir Keir says taxpayers are “really, really feeling the strain” and his model “doesn’t involve huge change to the tax regime”. The tax reforms Labour have announced so far have been both small-fry and crowd-pleasing: among them the closing of exemptions for private schools, private-equity bosses and non-domiciled taxpayers, with the proceeds earmarked for doctors, nurses and teachers. Does that herald an assault on the wealthy? “Quite the opposite. They are carefully calibrated decisions on particular tax loopholes. I, and Rachel, intend to resist the pull that so many people urge on us: that the first place a Labour government goes is to tax. The first place the next Labour government will go is to grow.” |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Apr 28, 2023 6:09:35 GMT
In a strong field for Regime village idiot of the week housing minister Rachel McLean takes the lead, in addition to thinking that voter identification will cut down on the levels of personation voter fraud( zero case recorded in 2022) it will somehow prevent the possibility of electoral postal vote potential problems while of course having nothing to do with postal votes.
But Rachel was only just getting into her stride when it came to the Sudan airlift she reached peak stupidity.
Incidentally Foreign Secretary Cleverly has exceeded the bar for foreign Secretary ineptitude by a) not being Spaffer Johnson and b) Not being on holiday in Crete waiting for the sea to open.
However that apart with around 900 out of 4000 British nationals recovered the UK performance is amongst the worst of any European countries and of course the xenophobic toxicity of the regime means that any vulnerable non British families of British nationals will be abandoned.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 6:14:08 GMT
The Sudan evacuation story isnt showing the Uk in a good light. Minister interviewed the other morning explained they owe a duty of care to their own employees, so the first thing they did in this crisis was evacuate Uk personnel in the diplomatic service. Which presumably explains the reprots that the Uk embassy was not interested even in collecting lists of names of people affected, because all their staff have left the country. 24 doctors who seem to be foreign nationals but who have visas to work in the UK were refused transport on Uk evacuation flights on the grounds they were not UK citizens. Similarly UK citizens with family they dont want to leave behind have been refused places for said family. Obviously we are not interested in being humanitarian in general, with only limited help for even UK citizens. The UK has a ban on all refugees reaching these shores. Its all rather reminiscent of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe left in jail for years in iran because the UK government refused to refund to iran money owed on tanks ordered years ago but never delivered. The Uk was not terribly interested in the fate of its own citizens never mind any others. However that apart with around 900 out of 4000 British nationals recovered the UK performance is amongst the worst of any European countries and of course the xenophobic toxicity of the regime means that any vulnerable non British families of British nationals will be abandoned. It wasnt clear to me that there is a shortage of places on UK RAF flights. A bigger difficulty seemed to be actually reaching the airport travelling 20 miles through hostile territory where there is an iffy ceasefire which has probably ended by now anyway. Also that no official advise what to do was being given out except to stay where you are. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Apr 28, 2023 6:16:47 GMT
mobyWell I suppose if you didn't want medical intervention and were suffering from insomnia you could deploy Starmer's five point plan, that should do the trick. I particularly liked "Starmerism has a strong emphasis on stakeholderism: businesses, charities and wonks " I like wonks we used to a have a collection of detachable ones on the sun visor in the car, oh hang on they're gonks. But I'm sure wonks are equally impressive.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 6:22:27 GMT
Despite all the attempts to make issues such as the trans debate front and Centre, this issue is much more concerning for most people I see someone suggested on twitter that £36,000 after tax for two people is the national average wage, and complained that very many people survive on a lot less. It would of course significantly depend on whether you have a mortgage, and indeed how expensive property is wherever you are in the country. This is based on two people working to get that money. One of the two (mother and daughter as it happens) said they are having to cut back on luxuries rather than essentials. Monthly bills have risen £400 not counting food. Her complaint seems to be that approaching retirement and getting creaky so that work is harder, she sees her standard of living obviously falling. The gap has been made up by cutting back on going out. And I can see how you could easily blow £100 on one evening out, so once a week. They also interviewed two other examples. A family butcher company which has ceased trading, and a schools community assistance organisation which finds itself now not only helping to provide school uniforms, but also giving parents loans to pay their electricity bills. I can see how having your electricity cut off would harm your education, but that this should now become a problem for schools in providing education shows how badly matters have deteriorated. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 6:31:06 GMT
I suspect someone was seeking to poke fun at the absurdity of political correctness and every few years having to change the words we use. I suspect Shakespeare used plenty of not politically correct words, quite deliberately. Hilarious...I expect Romanies/travellers subject to racist abuse appreciate the subtlety of it... Yeah.. A Shakespeare play was being discussed on R4 recently. He had boys playing girls pretending to be boys, falling for boys playing boys pretending to be girls. How did all that go down at court? Was he having a dig at prejudices and PC behaviour? Yep, I did wonder what you were referring to before you added the bit to your post, about Romanies. Did you just indulge in racist language by your own standards by using the words Romanies/travellers as previously complained about to decribe these people? Presumably because you couldnt think of any other way to explain who you meant? That would be a bit absurd? |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Apr 28, 2023 6:31:56 GMT
The 'useful idiots' ERG are no longer the force they once were and now just a small group of idiots. The whole 'bonfire of regulations' nonsense has been covered many times, going back to May's "3 buckets" Here's an article showing how Rishi is fixing the internal issue within CON (under 'new' Rishi management) and running rings around Starmer-LAB in the process
Rishi Sunak's 'unite or die' message to the Tories is slowly whipping his party into shapeinews.co.uk/opinion/rishi-sunaks-unite-or-die-message-to-the-tories-is-slowly-whipping-his-party-into-shape-2303840?ico=most_popularLAB might still try their attack ads on stuff like sewage but Starmer's Opposition Day motion backfired as due to partisan voting LAB couldn't be seen to back CON's "rewrite" of LAB's own motion. As the article states: "one Labour MP admitting that his party had been "made to look like twats""For CON MPs then "it is not the taking part but the winning that counts". Hence, with a GE now just 18mths away then self preservation combined with the very low bar set by Boris and the Truss error is perhaps lucky timing. Although Rishi will know that "winners make their own luck"So when’s crossover Trev.? When, according to your analysis do you think Tories might take the lead? ?!?! I don't have a crystal ball. Both main parties are now Tory but I assume you mean CON? My GUESS, as stated before, is that the improved economic news later this year (notably the near certainty of a big drop in inflation) will see another noticeable DROP in LAB's lead. They are already close to "predictions" of 200 seats and 18mths to go. Obviously a lot of 'event risk' between now and then, the ongoing strikes to resolve, etc. If pushed on when CON take a lead, I'd say in about 2yrs time (ie not long after the end of the honeymoon period post GE'24) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Apr 28, 2023 6:39:05 GMT
While that is true, Adam Bienkov's article suggests that Starmer's current attempt to portray himself as having a “long-standing view against PR” is contradicted by his previous comments - unless, of course, Starmer has a short term interpretation of what "long term" means! My primary point is that it is not news in April, since we have known since at least September last year. Nor was I in the slightest bit surprised. The reason for my decision to join the Labour Party was when Blair promised a commission and referendum on PR - a promise he broke when he won a FPTP landslide (we got the Jenkins commission, but its report gathered dust). I expect nothing from Labour on this unless there is a hung parliament. Attached link mentions the obvious situation that in a hung parliament LDEM will want PR. Starmer has moved from saying PR is an issue he wanted to do something about (Jan'20) to something that "wasn't a priority" (Sep'22) to now being something he has "long opposed". Yet if we do end up with a hung parliament then Starmer has ruled out a deal with SNP so if LDEM are needed to make up the numbers they can demand whatever they want - which will be PR. So before Starmer even gets into #10 he might have to totally reverse his position (again) - clearly showing him as a "flip flopper" (which for those not aware is part of CON's personal attack line on Starmer). Starmer could have left it as "not a priority" but he chose to make a false claim that has a "long opposition" to PR. If LAB can't form a govt then CON stay in charge longer and eventually a new GE would need to be held. Perhaps what Starmer really meant is that he wants LAB to be long in opposition.
Why next week’s local results could shatter Starmer’s hopes of a Labour majority in Westminsterinews.co.uk/news/politics/why-next-weeks-local-results-could-shatter-starmers-hopes-of-a-labour-majority-in-westminster-2303990Above link also has discussion of specific %s, seats for the LEs. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 6:41:16 GMT
Hilarious...I expect Romanies/travellers subject to racist abuse appreciate the subtlety of it... Yeah.. A Shakespeare play was being discussed on R4 recently. He had boys playing girls pretending to be boys, falling for boys playing boys pretending to be girls. How did all that go down at court? Was he having a dig at prejudices and PC behaviour? Yep, I did wonder what you were referring to before you added the bit to your post, about Romanies. Did you just indulge in racist language by your own standards by using the words Romanies/travellers as previously complained about to decribe these people? Presumably because you couldnt think of any other way to explain who you meant? That would be a bit absurd? No, I used it because the offensive word used is a general term of insult to Romanies and travellers, especially in conjunction with a general slur of criminality The word has no more place here than the n word to describe black people or the c word to describe women. Mercian may have many qualities, but he is not a famous 16th Century playwright At the last count I think we have lost 3 good people from thus site as a result of this insult I don't want anymore to go when a little forethought would prevent it |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Apr 28, 2023 6:49:25 GMT
If you were to imagine the lawyer representing the Agent Orange crime syndicate in court. That lawyer would be Joe " you talking to me" Tacopina  |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Apr 28, 2023 6:53:48 GMT
moby Well I suppose if you didn't want medical intervention and were suffering from insomnia you could deploy Starmer's five point plan, that should do the trick. I particularly liked "Starmerism has a strong emphasis on stakeholderism: businesses, charities and wonks " I like wonks we used to a have a collection of detachable ones on the sun visor in the car, oh hang on they're gonks. But I'm sure wonks are equally impressive. No good bits though? I like the 'green revolution' bit and the overall realism of his position. There is no political version of a superhero Marvel 'character' that I've come across that's going to shake our world. Starmerism is what we have out there compared to what we have now. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Apr 28, 2023 6:54:27 GMT
On that we can agree. In fact I don't expect anything from Starmer's government that isn't firmly rooted in Middle England. I do expect it to be considerably less corrupt and less driven by Tufton Street than the current administration, and that would be a considerable improvement. I'm reasonably confident that Starmer won't appoint Suella Braverman to be home secretary and that in itself would be a huge leap in a better direction. Cooper is Braveman-lite (or at least LAB's immigration policy is very close to CON's - just with some 'won't happen' and 'vague') There was some 'political games' on Weds from partisan voting on similar amendments that LAB are trying to use to say they will be tough on immigration but that means I can use LAB's own "attack ad" and break it down: 1. There is already a new cross border agreement. A very expensive one (CCHQ probably expected LAB to go after how much the deal with France is costing) 2. The returns deals within EU have collapsed. Macron has already said "non". It won't happen (at least not unless/until EU gets it's internal returns working again) 3. NIMBYism will make a joke of trying to do that. See my previous suggestion that any 'virtual signalling' MPs put their hand up in HoC and say they'll host immigrants in their constituency. 4. WOW. The "Lefty Lawyers" have been blocking that. So if LAB want to stop the "do bad" lawyers blocking deportations they need to back the bill 5. So LAB would keep Rwanda scheme? Perhaps, a bit like Brexit, then Starmer thinks 'CON-lite' is the central point of appeal but, like Brexit, the middle ground alienates both sides. You either want to 'Stop the boats' or you don't so CON's attack ad on the same issue (whilst using the same bar of honesty as LAB's attacks ads on other issues) cuts to the chase: Anyone who does want an "open door" policy can see that LAB are not offering that. Anyone who wants to clamp down hard on illegal immigration will go for the party doing something about it (and note if CON don't deliver by GE'24 then RUK's even stronger policy on immigration will likely see a lot of CON VI move to 'protest vote' for RUK) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,497
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Apr 28, 2023 6:55:12 GMT
It appears Sunak knew full well when he campaigned to become tory leader on the basis of repealing all EU laws he already knew it was a non-starter
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 7:03:44 GMT
A recent article by Starmer in The Economist in which he outlines what he stands for and what his plans are. This may be of interest as one of the major criticisms of him is that he lacks definition. Really not sure it will. For example, He proposes somehow (no real detail) to reform administration of government. I dont actually see that the civil service is failing to deliver based upon the instructions given it by the current government. Sure, government blames them for ineffectuality, but that is widely accepted as an excuse. Which it seems Starmer is happy to go along with. So he is thus far agreeing with con! Well duh, thats government policy not administration. So whats the new plan? He says it will need two terms in government, whatever it is. Sounds like stalling and not promising anything in one term. So does that mean rejoining the EU to restore growth? That is the biggest problem facing the UK economy, everything else is sticking plasters. Even if he rejoins at once and the EU are willing to expedite this, it would take a 5 year term to implement and even then the impact in lost private sector confidence would take decades to undo. Halving violent crime? Not a chance- unless you revise the reporting of crime in such a way half of previously included crimes arent counted. probably the only way to reduce violent crime is to get rid of the social groups which engage in it. Which roughly equates with abolishing poverty. No signs elsewhere how this might be done. Conservatives also have a policy of cutting crime, so no difference there. Tough luck for the nimbies then. A divergence from con policy, if he means it? Is that code for raising the pension age again? But that again seems to be agreeing con policy. How? Con also has a policy of softening the impact of brexit! detailed policy, that one. Sounds like no rejoining then, and no change to the arrangements con made. Agreeing with con again. very conservative, that one. Same policy as government. OK...how? How about the botched industrial strategy of privatising the water treatment industry, which saw a real terms drop in new investment but £50bn diverted to shareholders. Whatever the figures are for privatising the energy infrastructure, the total sums lost must be far bigger. One state owned energy operator hardly seems adequate. This is a no-brainer, but presumably not unrelated to the mention above of changing planning rules? Does changing those rules mean anything else at all? Ah...still thinking about that problem, no policy yet. Same policy as con. Same policy as con. Same policy as con. The last big attempt to centralise NHS records was a very expensive disaster. While attempts to sell off NHS data to the private sector were abandoned because so many people opted to withdraw their records from the system. it threatened the whole structure of the NHS if patients refused to allow their records to be computerised and shared internally. Same policy as con... Same policy as con. And the only way to fundamentally change Uk wealth distribution to help the poorer half, is to take that money from the richer half. Same policy as con. So Starmers grand plan is to copy conservative policy ? ? ?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,507
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Apr 28, 2023 7:10:33 GMT
if we do end up with a hung parliament then Starmer has ruled out a deal with SNP so if LDEM are needed to make up the numbers they can demand whatever they want - which will be PR. Parliament needs reform. As a first step it would be helpful to accept that under FPP we may have to accept minority governments which do not have a commons majority on every issue. Terribly frustrating for the big parties, but more representative of the voters. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Apr 28, 2023 7:11:59 GMT
I'm reasonably confident that Starmer won't appoint Suella Braverman to be home secretary and that in itself would be a huge leap in a better direction. Cooper is Braveman-lite (or at least LAB's immigration policy is very close to CON's - just with some 'won't happen' and 'vague') 1. There is already a new cross border agreement. A very expensive one (CCHQ probably expected LAB to go after how much the deal with France is costing) 2. The returns deals within EU have collapsed. Macron has already said "non". It won't happen (at least not unless/until EU gets it's internal returns working again) 3. NIMBYism will make a joke of trying to do that. See my previous suggestion that any 'virtual signalling' MPs put their hand up in HoC and say they'll host immigrants in their constituency. 4. WOW. The "Lefty Lawyers" have been blocking that. So if LAB want to stop the "do bad" lawyers blocking deportations they need to back the bill 5. So LAB would keep Rwanda scheme? Anyone who does want an "open door" policy can see that LAB are not offering that. Anyone who wants to clamp down hard on illegal immigration will go for the party doing something about it (and note if CON don't deliver by GE'24 then RUK's even stronger policy on immigration will likely see a lot of CON VI move to 'protest vote' for RUK) Your post is inaccurate, Labour will not keep the Rwanda scheme and the current return agreements are hugely expensive and totally inadequate. You are merely attempting to deflect from the record of the current tory administration on removals. Given this record to say that they are doing something about it is tendentious nonsense. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/conservatives-channel-crossings-small-boats-tories-rwanda-deportationyoutu.be/yxiZeehHeAw |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Apr 28, 2023 7:53:56 GMT
Can you please provide a link showing that either Cooper or Starmer have clearly stated they will scrap the Rwanda scheme. I'm very aware past efforts haven't worked, hence the need to try new things - like the Rwanda scheme. TBC if that works as a deterrent but if it doesn't then what 'new' approach would LAB (or anyone else) implement to 'Stop/reduce the boats'? Please don't suggest stuff like asking Macron for returns to France - we've tried that, he rightly said "non" as the returns scheme in EU has collapsed, again. By all means suggest some of the ideas of likes of Denmark or Italy. I wouldn't go as far as RUK's view, not yet at least. However, at some point it is likely they'll be a clash with ECHR and cases in the ECtHR - although that process will take some time (incomplete by GE'24 being my guess). |
|
