|
|
Post by mercian on May 18, 2023 0:23:22 GMT
Anybody who sees no difference between the Labour Party and modern Tories is failing deliberately. I'm not a great fan of labour but con have totally given up being a political party with wide appeal and chosen to appeal to factional and extreme right wing interests. You say that but I can't think of a more left-wing policy than handing out hundreds of pounds to every household to help them cope with their gas bills. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 18, 2023 0:29:52 GMT
Reading about the NatCon conference (some of which I've certainly found rather chilling), I couldn't help but recall the "swivel-eyed loons" remark which got David Cameron in some trouble ten years ago. It was Cameron, of course, who attempted to placate those same "swivel-eyed loons" in promising a referendum, which precipitated Brexit, the purge of the One Nation Tories and Johnsonian popularism. Nowadays, swivel-eyed loondom within the Conservative Party isn't merely confined to the nuttier fringe, it is very much a mainstream position, as the presence of several prominent MPs at this conference demonstrates. It's tempting to think of Cameron as one of the more palatable Tory leaders of recent times due to his social liberalism (and, frankly, the lack of competition) but his legacy is dreadful. It would have been bad enough had he merely overseen austerity - that he also had such a hand in the present chapter of UK politics marks his tenure out as truly disastrous. Just shows you what social liberalism leads to 😁 |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 18, 2023 0:34:47 GMT
One of the really interesting aspects of a site like this is the range of stances taken by us political geeks on a variety of issues. There's probably no contributor with whom I would disagree on absolutely every issue they mention.
However, party politics is what our systems require (there is no single system in the UK, but all depend on opting for one or more parties that seem more likely to deliver at least some of what we hope for).
Of course, we would all like to see every area of government handled competently, efficiently and effectively towards the common good by whoever has the power to make decisions, but decision makers are human and will sometimes screw up, or there may be unintended consequences. The pretence by opposition parties that they would never make such errors is laughable, though they do have the responsibility of criticising the errors that Ministers have made.
What always puzzles me, though, are those whose values seem to be determined by their party loyalty, rather than what they might want to see enacted, if they examined their own ambitions and needs for good governance. As the projected values of their party change, so do theirs and they will happily follow Big Brother in declaring that the party "has always been at war with Eurasia". (Orwell always produced penetrating observations which party loyalists object to being focussed on them).
I was struck by a statistic in the Scottish Household Survey that, of the adult population, only 31% took an interest in politics, but 80% had voted "in a recent election". As someone noted upthread current polls are driven by distaste for the current Tory government, rather than enthusiasm for Labour.
Those who imagine that polls giving a particular party a strong lead in VI is actually an endorsement of their proposed programme might reflect that the public perception may simply be that they are the least crap among their competitors.
(For the avoidance of doubt, the above comments apply to every party with a realistic chance of gaining power - in every polity).
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 18, 2023 0:35:29 GMT
Greens won the local election today. Gain from Con. Don't know percentages etc yet. Labour were fourth behind Libdem.
Green 1168
Conservative 817
Liberal Democrats 381
Labour 180
More evidence that the public are more anti-Tory than pro-Labour?
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 18, 2023 0:38:48 GMT
However, we have large and small scale demonstrations and direct action in this country by a number of different groups (fuel protestors, anti-Brexit, environmental, trade unions) all the time. And from what I know of other countries, English people are really no more or less apathetic than any other nationality. When something really matters to them, like someone trying to build a sewage works near their home, people all over the world tend to protest. Let's not forget that what you people would probably consider RoC groups also demonstrate, though it takes more to get them agitated. www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/remembering-the-biggest-rural-protest-in-the-ukThis was caused by Blair's ridiculous hunting ban. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2023 0:45:26 GMT
Greens won the local election today. Gain from Con. Don't know percentages etc yet. Labour were fourth behind Libdem. Green 1168 Conservative 817 Liberal Democrats 381 Labour 180 More evidence that the public are more anti-Tory than pro-Labour?If so, that is chilling reading for CON. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 18, 2023 0:58:41 GMT
I generally try to ignore some of the more obvious, intense, ongoing, unwinnable spats that take up so much UKPR2 bandwidth, (Alec/Danny, Steve/Jib etc.), which generate a lot of heat but not much light. It disappoints me that we now seem to be arriving at a similar situation with two more of the board's most informed contributors. I greatly respect Oldnat's (apologies for lack of blue highlighting of usernames - it's a real pain to do on my rubbish little tablet) wit and knowledge, and I regard PJW1961as one of the most erudite, informed and persuasive of posters. Everybody on this site has their own political standpoint, which is not going to be moved to a significant degree by any amount of virtual ink being expended by anyone trying to achieve a rapier bon mot to the heart and bring about a Damascene conversion. It just ain't going to happen.So maybe stick to the polling and the off-the-wall stuff that is one of the site's great virtues? Just a thought.
For example, pjw1961 and I agree on many matters, but he expounds his own version of what concerns Scotland. I have no hope (or even an intention to try) of changing his views, simply I provide an alternative view that counteracts his constitutional conservatism. If a single person becomes more disinclined to swallow his repetition of UK Unionist propaganda, and see its limitations, then I will be content.
EDIT : To be fair to pjw1961, he is only a British constitutional conservative. He wants NI to feck off out of his state. That's a radical proposal |
|
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 May 18, 2023 3:39:07 GMT
"In 1998, Ferguson was named in a list of the biggest private financial donors to the Labour Party. He is a self-described socialist."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_FergusonAnd being opposed to Scottish independence, as Ferguson is, doesn't automatically make you a British nationalist (no idea on Ferguson's views on that). You are still unable to grasp that some of us are not nationalists at all and reject nationalism as an ideology. And you are totally incapable of understanding that there is no single "ideology of nationalism" outwith your somewhat fevered imagination. You have stated that you would prefer the state that you inhabit to have borders variant from the UK - you would like to see Irish unification, although quite way you haven't explained. You are, perfectly respectably, a "British Nationalist" who wants a British state. You can throw around your fanciful notions, and insist that you are indeed Humpty Dumpty - “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.”but, despite your pretensions to be masterful, you are just carefully balancing on that wall. "Nationalism - ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests." www.britannica.com/topic/nationalismOf course nationalism is an ideology. People may be legally born citizens of a state but they aren't born nationalists. Socialism is and always has been an internationalist ideology, emphasising the solidarity of those with similar interests and outlook across geographical boundaries. As to my own position, the prior discussion was in the context of Alec's proposal for a truly federal UK (or GB), rather than the existing overly centralised state. I also said that I would be happy to see the UK vanish altogether into a Europe-wide entity and indeed to have a single world government. |
|
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 May 18, 2023 3:48:16 GMT
Greens won the local election today. Gain from Con. Don't know percentages etc yet. Labour were fourth behind Libdem. Green 1168 Conservative 817 Liberal Democrats 381 Labour 180 More evidence that the public are more anti-Tory than pro-Labour? It is called "tactical squeeze" - Green stated in a clear second place - although you are also right that there is an ABCON mood about. Good result for the Lib Dems through. Percentages: Green 45.9 (+11.9), Con 32.1 (-10.3), Lib Dem 15.0 (+15.0), Lab 7.1 (-16.5) |
|
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 May 18, 2023 3:57:46 GMT
pjw1961
"I looked from Tory nationalist to Scottish nationalist and from Scottish Nationalist to Tory nationalist again but already it was impossible to say which was which."
That's poor, even for you. Among those who want Scotland to be a sovereign state there is the same range of political opinion on other areas of politics as there is among those who want the UK (or GB, in your case) to be a sovereign state.
I understand your wish for the current corrupt government of the UK, with its strong far right influence, to be despatched with all possible speed and thoroughness. That is something that I and most Scots wish too. I can also understand your recognition that much of the English electorate are more RoC than LoC and that to evict them from the governance of England, Labour has to be a moderate, reasonable, RoC party too.
The Scots electorate (whether wanting a Scots, GB or UK state) have long rejected that One Nation Toryism that you profess - whether it is implemented by Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. I generally try to ignore some of the more obvious, intense, ongoing, unwinnable spats that take up so much UKPR2 bandwidth, (Alec/Danny, Steve/Jib etc.), which generate a lot of heat but not much light. It disappoints me that we now seem to be arriving at a similar situation with two more of the board's most informed contributors. I greatly respect Oldnat's (apologies for lack of blue highlighting of usernames - it's a real pain to do on my rubbish little tablet) wit and knowledge, and I regard PJW1961as one of the most erudite, informed and persuasive of posters. Everybody on this site has their own political standpoint, which is not going to be moved to a significant degree by any amount of virtual ink being expended by anyone trying to achieve a rapier bon mot to the heart and bring about a Damascene conversion. It just ain't going to happen. So maybe stick to the polling and the off-the-wall stuff that is one of the site's great virtues? Just a thought. I wouldn't worry too much. Oldnat and I disagree about nationalism, even as to what it is, and that argument is indeed 'unwinnable'. However, the other part is just politics. Oldnat wants people to vote for parties that support Scottish independence, which at Westminster level means the SNP, so he and hireton spend a lot of time attacking their main rivals, the Labour Party. They are of course entitled to do that, but sadly these attacks include a lot of dubious, exaggerated positions - as in the Lisa Nandy case. Where they do this I will point it out. This is going to go on happening until the GE and then will naturally ease off afterward. |
|
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 May 18, 2023 4:07:36 GMT
I generally try to ignore some of the more obvious, intense, ongoing, unwinnable spats that take up so much UKPR2 bandwidth, (Alec/Danny, Steve/Jib etc.), which generate a lot of heat but not much light. It disappoints me that we now seem to be arriving at a similar situation with two more of the board's most informed contributors. I greatly respect Oldnat's (apologies for lack of blue highlighting of usernames - it's a real pain to do on my rubbish little tablet) wit and knowledge, and I regard PJW1961as one of the most erudite, informed and persuasive of posters. Everybody on this site has their own political standpoint, which is not going to be moved to a significant degree by any amount of virtual ink being expended by anyone trying to achieve a rapier bon mot to the heart and bring about a Damascene conversion. It just ain't going to happen.So maybe stick to the polling and the off-the-wall stuff that is one of the site's great virtues? Just a thought.
For example, pjw1961 and I agree on many matters, but he expounds his own version of what concerns Scotland. I have no hope (or even an intention to try) of changing his views, simply I provide an alternative view that counteracts his constitutional conservatism. If a single person becomes more disinclined to swallow his repetition of UK Unionist propaganda, and see its limitations, then I will be content.
EDIT : To be fair to pjw1961 , he is only a British constitutional conservative. He wants NI to feck off out of his state. That's a radical proposalOdd kind of constitutonal conservative given as well as Irish unification, I want a republic, abolition of the House of Lords, elections by proportional representation (STV), a truly federal Britain with an English parliament and rejoining the EU (among other things). And btw, I realise Labour aren't going to give me any of that, at least not for the foreseeable future. But nor is voting Green or for a left-wing fringe party as they will just lose. Task one is to remove the Conservative Party from power, which in most of England and Wales means voting Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 4:35:22 GMT
pjw1961 __
The Scots electorate (whether wanting a Scots, GB or UK state) have long rejected that One Nation Toryism that you profess - whether it is implemented by Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. I wonder what the Scottish electorate will make of the two weeks it takes for the Crown Office to issue a warrant for the police to do a house search. Let's hope there was no delay to the legal process caused by a party in Govmt for political expediency, heaven forbid. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 5:34:26 GMT
This strikes me as quite a strange and incoherent article. I don't see anything "remarkably bold" in attempting to wind a majority - isn't that what every iteration of Cons and Lab try to do? His central argument seems to be that Starmer is successfully uniting working and middle-class voters, citing the increased swing in Brexit-voting areas. Fair enough, but Labour's Brexit policy - largely based around not mentioning Brexit - doesn't look like a viable strategy in the long term in the same way as the Tory Party's odd 2019 coalition hasn't proved to be very enduring. He identifies this very broad voting coalition, but there's very little mention of policy, or how such a voting coalition might be sustained (the only thing mentioned is housebuilding, and all parties pledge to build more houses, so I'm not sure how this sets Starmer's Labour apart, nor do I see it as a particularly working-class concern). If anything unites a large coalition of voters at present it's surely antipathy towards Cons, rather than enthusiasm for Lab. Also, couldn't help but be amused by the cognitive dissonance of "providing that the party remains a broad church and – crucially – avoids foolish accommodations with the activist left". So Kettle's happy for Lab to be a broad church so long as said church only comprises centrists. Hmm. I think Labour look on course for a majority but the desire to paint Starmer as "bold" or "audacious" is a bit of a stretch to say the least. Look who has liked that post and that will tell you a lot about what Labours challenges are. His coalition has to be broad otherwise he will not get elected. Do you seriously believe that an alternative more leftist vision could have done better in the circumstances given the fractious state this country is in? Of course there is no enthusiasm for Labour. What would you expect though given the world we are in. The damage done by brexit, the lies and corruption of Johnson, the total ineptitude of Truss infects everything. You clearly thought Corbyn had a vision of hope but sadly many of your fellow citizens didn't. His manifesto and 'vision' wasn't believed. We are cynical about all politicians, not just Tory ones. No one has a free pass, not even Owen Jones. (Nicola Sturgeon did walk on water for a while in parts of this country but look at what happened there!). Trust and enthusiasm for political visions is clearly absent. There is no unity of vision between the generations or between the political traditions. What I'm hoping for is some basic competence in Govmt, the return of decency and the hope that we have a few promises/policies that actually get implemented in reality, (unlike Johnson's promise to build 40 new hospitals). I acknowledge I may be being unambitious though, perhaps Richard Burgeon is about to change everything! |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 5:45:12 GMT
pjw1961
"I looked from Tory nationalist to Scottish nationalist and from Scottish Nationalist to Tory nationalist again but already it was impossible to say which was which."
That's poor, even for you. Among those who want Scotland to be a sovereign state there is the same range of political opinion on other areas of politics as there is among those who want the UK (or GB, in your case) to be a sovereign state.
I understand your wish for the current corrupt government of the UK, with its strong far right influence, to be despatched with all possible speed and thoroughness. That is something that I and most Scots wish too. I can also understand your recognition that much of the English electorate are more RoC than LoC and that to evict them from the governance of England, Labour has to be a moderate, reasonable, RoC party too.
The Scots electorate (whether wanting a Scots, GB or UK state) have long rejected that One Nation Toryism that you profess - whether it is implemented by Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. I generally try to ignore some of the more obvious, intense, ongoing, unwinnable spats that take up so much UKPR2 bandwidth, (Alec/Danny, Steve/Jib etc.), which generate a lot of heat but not much light. It disappoints me that we now seem to be arriving at a similar situation with two more of the board's most informed contributors. I greatly respect Oldnat's (apologies for lack of blue highlighting of usernames - it's a real pain to do on my rubbish little tablet) wit and knowledge, and I regard PJW1961as one of the most erudite, informed and persuasive of posters. Everybody on this site has their own political standpoint, which is not going to be moved to a significant degree by any amount of virtual ink being expended by anyone trying to achieve a rapier bon mot to the heart and bring about a Damascene conversion. It just ain't going to happen. So maybe stick to the polling and the off-the-wall stuff that is one of the site's great virtues? Just a thought. I suggest a simple little solution. If certain posters just refrained from throwing around the term 'British Nationalist' the tone of the debate would improve immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 6:01:05 GMT
However, we have large and small scale demonstrations and direct action in this country by a number of different groups (fuel protestors, anti-Brexit, environmental, trade unions) all the time. And from what I know of other countries, English people are really no more or less apathetic than any other nationality. When something really matters to them, like someone trying to build a sewage works near their home, people all over the world tend to protest. Let's not forget that what you people would probably consider RoC groups also demonstrate, though it takes more to get them agitated. www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/remembering-the-biggest-rural-protest-in-the-ukThis was caused by Blair's ridiculous hunting ban. So the 'more' that got these people agitated was the intervention of the State to stop a group of idiots in red coats tearing foxes apart with hounds. Talk about a loss of perspective while the NHS goes down the tubes! |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 6:15:04 GMT
She could probably drop social from her description. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." She is obviously pandering to the new 'communities' who tend to vote Labour. You know the ones - they are socially conservative in the sense of arranged marriages and so on. I wonder how that sits with the LGBTXYZ community who also tend to vote Labour? It's called changing attitudes so that we can live together in diverse communities through accepting difference. You don't like it, just buy your own little island somewhere, one where you can impose your own rules of white male dominion over all you survey. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 6:28:16 GMT
Royal mail in the news for having lost 1 billion pounds. This follows stories recently about people only getting one delivery every fortnight and how the delays in delivering letters are starting to become so long they compromise delivery of medical records or legal documents. Various such people saying that ultimately they rely upon this service and while it is still delivering just in time, it cannot be allowed to deteriorate further.
On the other hand, the whole company which used to be the government mail and parcels service is now divided in to three separate companies. Overall the group made a small loss, whcih means the parcels service and the other one together made profits.
Its clear what the management intend. Since these are separate companies, it can just let the mail service go bust. Since government will have to bail it out, it will have to renationalise it at big expense, presumably a billion a year cost.
Whereas we used to own the whole business nationally and so would have enjoyed the cross subsidy from the parcels service too. Its a scam which government surely must have been aware of to lumber the nation with the cost, but some mates in the private sector get the profitable parts of the company.
Thatcher gave away many nationally owned companies, justifying this by offering shares to everyone. However most of these were quickly sold at a modest profit compared to valuations now, so have all ended up controlled by the rich. While it took a little while and a modest bung to voters, the assets ended up in the hands of the rich, as would have been the case hundreds of years ago in a traditional british values feudal society.
And another interesting interviewee arguing that the government proposal to spend 10 bn cleaning up the waste water industry, which would be added to our water bills, is an utter nonsense. he argues that under the original legislation setting up these companies, they committed to spending this and more money out of their agreed levels of income, but instead of making this expenditure on the system paid it to shareholders. That the legislation already enables the regulators to claim back this money from the companies, who should instead be paying back 10bn to billpayers, plus doing the work anyway.
In short, that the government is simply letting them get away with it!
So...vote tory for bigger bills for the poor (the rich got the dividends). And maybe thats the point, because only 1/4 of the nation votes conservative.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 6:56:54 GMT
That said, we should surely still do what we can to reduce the risk of killing Nana, even if that's ultimately faffing around on the margins of the probabilities? No. Thats the fatal flaw in the logic. nana will die, that is certain given the current state of human knowledge, sooner rather than later. All you can possibly do is delay her death a bit, and the more things you do to try to delay it, the greater the cost grows and grows. So, to make a very extreme example but one entirely valid given what you said, you could stop buying food for her grand daughter to spend instead on precautions to protect granny. This would of course result in her granddaughter dying first. I hope this illustrates the absurdity of what you said. I am sure you would accept I am right, it does not make sense to do this, and granny would be truly horified if you did. And you did not mean something so extreme to be part of 'do what we can'. But this is exactly the same argument why lockdown made no sense. The cost was truly massive compared to the life years which might have been gained by much cheaper approaches to covid coupled with spending much lower sums on general health care. People are dying now from under funding of the NHS which could produce much better returns in lives saved. We cannot stop people dying. We cannot spend unlimited funds on health, and this conservative government chooses to spend less than most comparable rich nations. What we do spend must be spent as cost effectively as possible, which does not mean concentrating everything on granny, and did not mean calling national lockdowns against covid. Incidentally, news item this morning said overweight people cost the NHS twice as much as others. They didnt say, but most NHS money is spent on pensioners. For much the same reason, age steadily destroys your health as does obesity. Boris Johnson was noteably ill from covid and this was used to justify lockdowns, etc. The big example of what could happen to everyone. But it wasnt true-he was at bigger risk because he was (and is) overweight. There were other suggestions at the time why he might also have other medical risk factors, which were dismissed as private information.
Government chose to treat covid in the same way it approaches everything, what best improved its chances of keeping voter support, and what benefitted most its own voters, ie pensioners. It seems lockdown was not the best approach even for penseioners, but there was advice it might be at the time. But overall this was a really bad approach for the nation. The cost of protecting granny was placed on her granddaughter. Added to the bill for her to pay in the future, which maybe means she will not get medical services when her turn comes round to need them.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on May 18, 2023 6:57:48 GMT
Greens won the local election today. Gain from Con. Don't know percentages etc yet. Labour were fourth behind Libdem. Green 1168 Conservative 817 Liberal Democrats 381 Labour 180 More evidence that the public are more anti-Tory than pro-Labour? Or that the public are picking up on this voting tactically malarkey? A couple of days ago someone on here usefully posted this ward’s last election’s figures. Greens back then were the nearest challengers and weren’t that far off the winning Tory volumes. When I saw that, I thought that if I lived there I’d be voting Green. I say that as someone who, if I lived there, would vote Labour in a general election. I still think there are lots of Tories who don’t understand the scale of their predicament. I can understand that to a point - afterall it was only four years ago they won a strong majority. Ally that to the mess Labour were in and the arrogance of believing that they are the natural party of government and there is a lot for Tories to cling on to before the present reality kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on May 18, 2023 7:01:58 GMT
She is obviously pandering to the new 'communities' who tend to vote Labour. You know the ones - they are socially conservative in the sense of arranged marriages and so on. I wonder how that sits with the LGBTXYZ community who also tend to vote Labour? It's called changing attitudes so that we can live together in diverse communities through accepting difference. You don't like it, just buy your own little island somewhere, one where you can impose your own rules of white male dominion over all you survey. What's wrong with an arranged marriage? That's the premise on which all dating agencies operate. And if young people want help from friends and family in meeting a suitable partner that seems ok to me. You show your ignorance in that I strongly suspect you were referring to forced marriage which is an entirely different kettle of fish. But this is how prejudice works. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 18, 2023 7:30:23 GMT
For those interested, I've just posted a pre print on the covid thread which shows the scale of the increased risk of hospitalization of children from RSV if they have had prior covid infection.
This was entirely expected, and as with flu hospitalizations, it was clear from the outset to anyone looking at the numbers that something was wrong, with a far higher ratio of hospital admissions to flu/RSV cases than previously. Covid was always the most likely culprit, given it's ability to dysregulate the immune system, and he-ho, that's exactly what we find.
This is another major step in illustrating that the simplistic attempt to ignore covid impacts will fail. A much broader, big picture approach is needed, and only then will society be able to acknowledge the full extent of the harm from covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 18, 2023 7:34:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 18, 2023 7:40:17 GMT
It's called changing attitudes so that we can live together in diverse communities through accepting difference. You don't like it, just buy your own little island somewhere, one where you can impose your own rules of white male dominion over all you survey. What's wrong with an arranged marriage? That's the premise on which all dating agencies operate. And if young people want help from friends and family in meeting a suitable partner that seems ok to me. You show your ignorance in that I strongly suspect you were referring to forced marriage which is an entirely different kettle of fish. But this is how prejudice works. I'd assume people choose to join a dating agency though? I'm not sure from what I've seen how much choice sometimes people have in family and friends 'helping' them towards an arranged marriage. From what I've seen financial considerations between families are a prime concern. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:41:24 GMT
I think you'll find it was 52%. The people had spoken and the parliamentary shenanigans had dragged on for so long that Brexit had to happen in whatever form. [/e the EU voted UKIP.quote]No. if you ask people whether we should be in or out of the EU 100% may answer and they can only choose yes or no. But it may still be true 100% do not care or have no real basis to choose. The people who really wanted to leave voted UKIP, maybe about 10%, and leaving was because that group wanted it. Before this blew up EU membership hardly figured in one of those tables of issues important to voters. So 10% imposed harm on the 100%, and con enabled them to do it despite knowing the harm it would cause. The pound dropped 20% on the back of the brexit news. There has been a fire sale of Uk assets. Investment in the UK made a step change downwards, and of course we are still seeing the flight of industry from the UK because of Brexit. Growth took a step change down. Yesterday saw a chorus of companies saying the brexit deal must be renegotiated, which means rejoining to one degree or another. Inflation is generally agreed to be above that of comparable nations, and there is no special circumstance in the Uk except brexit. (unless you blame it overall of the incompetence of the conservative government?) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:42:44 GMT
]I have noted before that 12 years from now would be the minimum for a Brexit reversal (IMO). They'd better get their skates on! Could all be done in one parliament. And no referendum is needed (unless the EU insisted). |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:46:38 GMT
Negative about everything we do. It gets very tedious. Who cares what 'rate' power we are, we're helping the Ukraine more than most countries are. Apparently conservative voters do, because it is the government hyping how much it is helping ukraine, when in reality its all rather half hearted. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:51:30 GMT
I'm not a great fan of labour but con have totally given up being a political party with wide appeal and chosen to appeal to factional and extreme right wing interests. You say that but I can't think of a more left-wing policy than handing out hundreds of pounds to every household to help them cope with their gas bills. If they had not done so then inflation would have shot up much more and with it wage costs for private industry and indeed the public sector. The uproar against government mismanagemnt of the economy would have been even greater, especially when compared to foreign governments doing even more. The economy would have taken an even greater hit, and in particular this would be because britain was out of step with competitors. Its akin to the collapse of confidence when truss announced her unique plan. The government had no choice but to do what it did. If government wasnt compelled to help the poor to a degree, it would not be doing it at all. Its about the intent and the direction of travel. Con always and systematically have driven down help to the poor and handed it to the rich. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:54:22 GMT
He wants NI to feck off out of his state. That's a radical proposal [/font][/quote]Given The irish republic is steadily getting richer than the UK, the time will predictably come when they consider subsidising the north will be worth it to reunite Ireland. And off it will go. a brexit bonus for the conservative and unionist party. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on May 18, 2023 7:59:27 GMT
For those interested, I've just posted a pre print on the covid thread which shows the scale of the increased risk of hospitalization of children from RSV if they have had prior covid infection. having a bad case of covid is a brilliant screening test for high susceptibility to all sorts of other illness. But we knew that in 2020. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2023 8:01:03 GMT
Apparently the rising star of the Tory party is Miriam Cates.
Cates is a crusader against " wokeness " whatever that is and wishes to impose her own religious fundamentalism on every one else identifying the UK 's falling birthrate and gender fluidity as the two most serious issues of the day.
Cates and her husband also have a nice side gig making money out of food banks.
She's the emerging voice of the christofascists
|
|
