|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 9, 2024 15:43:47 GMT
I see what has happened. The Wikipedia page has completely missed the 19/20 December poll by YouGov. So this apparent big swing is just that poll being an outlier.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 9, 2024 15:43:48 GMT
I wonder if Fujitsu have donated to any of the political parties over their many years of winning government contracts? I presume this will come out, if true, during the current Inquiry that, I believe, they are fully cooperating with. We do know the former Fujitsu UK chair and board member Michael Keegan, the husband of current cabinet minister Gillian Keegan, is now working in cabinet office overseeing supplier relationships. Drain the swamp!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 15:44:57 GMT
Con probably do regard this as a good news story, because of the potential to blame libs and lab too. Actually-if you watched the debate in HoC yesterday after the Ministerial Statement as I did , it was refreshing. Complete cross party agreement on getting this sorted pronto. Compliments for the Minister's efforts to date. He thanked everyone else . And they all praised Sir Wyn Williams' Inquiry. Good to see. Exactly...a very good day for con where they didnt get exclusively blamed for something. But everyone pretended it was no MPs fault.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 15:46:59 GMT
She lives in Wembley, is Colombian (German father and Colombian mother) and grew up in South Africa. When she was orphaned she came to Britain and has lived here ever since. Now with her background I might have expected her to have been a Remainer, but no she voted for Brexit Then you were quite wrong. Immigrants were on the whole brexit supporters. Immigrants in general do not like new immigrants coming here. I guess it threatens their own position. We have a government stuffed with immigrants who exemplify this.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 9, 2024 15:48:56 GMT
I do think both major GB wide parties are now misnamed. Labour doesn't primarily represent the working class - perhaps the (Mildly) Progressive Party would be about right. And there is nothing very conservative about the current iteration of the party carrying that name (and the English branch doesn't seem all that bothered about the Union, so Unionist doesn't work either.) The Grievance Party sums it up best of late. I still find it difficult to fathom how former committed Labour voters in areas which strongly voted Brexit in 2016 still see the present-day Tory party as representing their interests. The Brexit issue is now very much in the background - and likely to remain there for years to come. The reasons that they voted Tory are no longer relevant. Corbyn is now long gone - as is Johnson now. What is it about the Tory record of recent years that such people find so appealing? They see Labour as too interested in the problems of minorities of various sorts and not enough in the white working class. Not saying they are right, but that's the issue.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 9, 2024 15:56:45 GMT
"It has been really all down to one discreditted man." While corrupt narcissistic serial liar Spaffer has a large slice of the blame frog faced hate gimp Farage was just as culpable You shouldn't however exonerate millions of those who had access to the same facts as we All did but decided, because they didn't like hearing polish on the bus , or the fact that the local fish and chip shop was run by a "chinese" family, or that the entire population of Turkey was about to arrive at Dover ( all genuine reasons given) , that they would take the opportunity to ignore the truth and vote for the lies instead. It was truly national village idiots day. Without quite using the word you are accusing all Leave voters of being racist. I and a number of people I know voted Leave because of the EU's lack of democratic accountability and the spineless attitude of our own governments in enacting most EU rules and regulations via statutory instruments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 16:10:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jan 9, 2024 16:13:42 GMT
Sky News :- Cameron says that he is worried that Israel MIGHT have taken action in Gaza that MAY be in breach of International Law.
MIGHT/MAY - where has he been for the past few weeks. It is obvious that they HAVE taken action that IS in breach of International Law. When will the UK government make an outright statement on this, criticise Israel and stop funding this obnoxious regime.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 9, 2024 16:18:45 GMT
robbiealive"Not seen Korea but liked or loved all the others. But why yr determined, bozo, self-styled philistinism." I was simply trying to head off the sort of reaction that's becoming all too common on this site.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 9, 2024 16:40:18 GMT
It possibly indicates that they have almost no hope in the future and resentment is the key motivator. There seems a total absence of hope now from right wing narratives generally, especially here and in the US. It's all about fear and distrust/resentment of the 'other', foreign or domestic (educated liberals).I have an interesting story. This morning on the bus, I was talking to an old lady (who I had never met before and who had started the conversation). She lives in Wembley, is Colombian (German father and Colombian mother) and grew up in South Africa. When she was orphaned she came to Britain and has lived here ever since. Now with her background I might have expected her to have been a Remainer, but no she voted for Brexit because she disliked the EU. What she really appreciated was the UK before it joined the EU when it provided a welcome for her rather than the UK in the EU which allowed in other Europeans but discriminated against people like her coming from outside Europe. We need to remember that people voted for Brexit for a whole range of reasons, some of which were not easily explainable. Of course that's true, in the same way that millions voted to stay in the EU for a variety of reasons; some more explicable than others. Listen to somerjohn and domjg's reasons and while they may overlap, they are interestingly different. Cultural, economic, political; a whole mix of voting determinants at play in the Remain Referendum vote. I think the problem with this debate is that people on both sides of it seek victimhood. "We're all idiots or racists according to you, aren't we?", say leavers aggrieved at the continuing criticism of the decision to leave. Well, no you're not, and very few people are claiming that. However it's a convenient shield to rebut and rebuff those with a different view to your own. Equally, some Remainers claim that Brexiteers mock their liberal values and wokeism. Some do, but most people who voted to leave the EU appreciate, or at least understand, the reasons why some of our fellow citizens regret our departure and wanted to stay. Mockery and derision pollutes the ongoing debate on both sides. In my post yesterday, I concentrated on some of the baser reasons why SOME of the Leave voters opted to vote that way. It was based on the view that while it is not true to say that all Leave voters are racists, they are plainly not, I think it is true to say all racists were Brexiteers, whether they voted Leave or not. And that's very significant because it is also self-evidently true that there is a significant minority of people in this country who harbour racist views. You'd have to live in a very cloistered world not to encounter them almost on a daily basis. I think we under-estimate their numbers. Right wing populists sense a political erogenous zone to tickle with this section of the population. They're not daft. Letter box burkas, picanniny smiles. Johnson knew what audience he was playing to. My despair about the 2016 Referendum was that it galvanised this minority, gave them a voice, spokesmen, influence and a cause. We took a stick to a buzzing hornets nest.
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jan 9, 2024 16:50:12 GMT
"It has been really all down to one discreditted man." While corrupt narcissistic serial liar Spaffer has a large slice of the blame frog faced hate gimp Farage was just as culpable You shouldn't however exonerate millions of those who had access to the same facts as we All did but decided, because they didn't like hearing polish on the bus , or the fact that the local fish and chip shop was run by a "chinese" family, or that the entire population of Turkey was about to arrive at Dover ( all genuine reasons given) , that they would take the opportunity to ignore the truth and vote for the lies instead. It was truly national village idiots day. Without quite using the word you are accusing all Leave voters of being racist. I and a number of people I know voted Leave because of the EU's lack of democratic accountability and the spineless attitude of our own governments in enacting most EU rules and regulations via statutory instruments. The EU is run by the democratically-elected Parliament, the Council of Ministers (from democratically-elected governments) and the Commission (appointed by democratically-elected governments). In what conceivable way is there any deficiency (never mind ‘lack’) of democratic accountability? Also, could you give us a couple of examples government “spinelessness” over EU regs?
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 9, 2024 17:05:31 GMT
Mercian: "I and a number of people I know voted Leave because of the EU's lack of democratic accountability and the spineless attitude of our own governments in enacting most EU rules and regulations via statutory instruments."
I've heard this line a few times but have never heard any of its adherents go on to make a convincing case for it.
To take your more interesting second reason first, the UK parliament in its wisdom declined to give effective scrutiny to EU regulations when they were proposed, leaving this (as so much, for instance trade negotiations of late) to the government. Choice and use of the SI route to enact regulations was entirely under UK sovereign control. But perhaps you think the "spineless attitude of our own governments" is the fault of the EU?
The UK government negotiated, agreed and approved all those regulations. MPs and the press showed remarkably little interest in 99% of them, and to this day I doubt if one person in 100 could name an EU regulation to which they personally object, or which was imposed on the UK in the face of government or parliamentary opposition. Bendy bananas, perhaps (tosh though that was). The only other one I remember is the DM-inspired opposition to more efficient vacuum cleaners. And, of course, brexit has changed nothing: the way the government was rolled over by the Australians in that trade deal, with Parliament impotent, would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
As for the EU's democratic accountability, that's been debated here often enough. The EU parliament has been growing in effectiveness and influence at roughly the same rate as the UK parliament has been declining. Where, for example, is there any evidence of democratic accountabilty in the PO Horizon saga? And why is the unelected HoL a more effective scrutineer of government than the Commons? Why has the government been able to flout environmental laws since 'taking back control'?
If the reasons you and others give for opposition to the EU were genuine, the implication is that you would drop your opposition if EU democratic accountability and UK-level scrutiny met your requirements. But, of course, nothing would in practice meet those requirements: they are just a nice-sounding, defensible and very moveable smokescreen behind which can be hidden the darker and more primal motivations for opposing the mutual benefit society that is the EU.
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 9, 2024 17:10:29 GMT
..... Labour should now be more confident of winning in places like Wycombe, Colchester, Altrincham, or the Bournemouth seats than in Bassetlaw or Mansfield. I would be supried to see labour re-take any seat which voted 65%+ for Leave in a General Election, even though they did narrowly manage that in the Tamworth by-election. Thanks for that analysis (you are one of the reasons I keep coming back here!) It is hard to grasp the nuances of polling in areas whose characteristics are somewhat dissimilar to one's own.
It does strike me that, if Labour gain power through the votes of wealthier (if perhaps more socially liberal) folk in the South of England, then to maintain power it would be wise for them to govern in their interests. I don't think it's sensible for people to continue to characterise any political party as having an immutable set of values, hence the decreasing value of looking back at polling or election results from the 1970s or 80s.The position of Voting Intentions by social class is now rather confused, as different pollsters show very different figures. To take the average of the past 3 Deltapolls, they show: Deltapoll ABC1s Lab 37% Con 30% Deltapoll C2DEs Lab 47% Con 25% However, the recent averages per YouGov are: ABC1s Lab 49% Con 21% C2DEs Lab 42% Con 27% So YG and Delta are 7 points apart for C2DEs, and 21 points apart for ABC1s. If you split the difference, the two groups average almost the same result. My approach to try to get a meaningful picture of changes is to compare YouGov's figures with their own previous analyses. And they are continuing to show Labour making more progress in the higher social classes, as they have been doing steadily for decades. But what is also clear is that Social Class alone is now a very poor predictor of Voting Intention. Several polls and analyses I have seen have produced similar results for their AB and DE samples. And as I have mentioned before, the Conservatives' stongest social demographic is now C2 voters, whereas Labour do best with C1s. This was already the case at GE2019 (see link below) but has become more so. yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/26925-how-britain-voted-2019-general-election?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2019%2F12%2F17%2Fhow-britain-voted-2019-general-election
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 17:30:21 GMT
crossbat11“ In my post yesterday, I concentrated on some of the baser reasons why SOME of the Leave voters opted to vote that way. It was based on the view that while it is not true to say that all Leave voters are racists, they are plainly not, I think it is true to say all racists were Brexiteers, whether they voted Leave or not. And that's very significant because it is also self-evidently true that there is a significant minority of people in this country who harbour racist views. You'd have to live in a very cloistered world not to encounter them almost on a daily basis. I think we under-estimate their numbers. Right wing populists sense a political erogenous zone to tickle with this section of the population. They're not daft. Letter box burkas, picanniny smiles. Johnson knew what audience he was playing to. My despair about the 2016 Referendum was that it galvanised this minority, gave them a voice, spokesmen, influence and a cause. We took a stick to a buzzing hornets nest. ” Excellent post Batty and I think it demonstrates that it is incumbent on remain voters, however passionate, to eschew throwing the easy “stupid/racist/etc” stick at those who voted to leave and just concentrate on the benefits of edging closer together again and allowing for the potential to rejoin the EU at some point. It’s hardly surprising when people react negatively to insults - even if merited in limited cases.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,264
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 17:53:13 GMT
I've never said that all Brexit voters were racist or uninterested in facts but it's totally naive to suggest that there weren't hundreds of thousands or millions that fulfilled one or both these criteria.
Simply because they might not perceive themselves as racist or xenophobic or ignorant of facts doesn't mean that objectively they can't be.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 9, 2024 18:05:57 GMT
A question often asked is are we looking at 1992 or 1997 in terms of a likely General Election result For me it is very much 1997 for three reasons 1. 10 months before 1992 Labour had an average poll lead of 6% It's now 18% 2. Polls are done more regularly now than in 1992 and by more pollsters. In addition some of the pollsters reallocate don't knows to their 2019 vote, this favours the tories. But it's not 2019 and the factors present then have either gone or no longer so salient 3. Whilst Starmer may not be a Neil Kinnock or Tony Blair, Sunak is certainly no John Major and he is very unpopular I still think the chances of a huge Labour landslide are under priced in large sections of the media Hi neilj , I think one of massive differences between now and the '90's elections is the current state/position of the media. In terms of traditional media, print/tv, the Tories have as bigger adv as ever, with their supporters able to set the news agenda/cycle. In '97, Murdock famously got the Sun to switch sides. I really cant see anything like that happening now - as Murdock's media model, as is that that of Mail and Telegraph is now firmly tied into the peddling/selling of hate/disgust and pandering to nativist tendencies present in certain sectors of the electorate. This is the model illustrated by Fox News in the US. Financially the problem for Murdock is that his punters have alternatives they can readily desert to, GB news, The Mail etc - but if Labour get in without owing him anything, he will find himself with very little or no influence with the UK gvt, a situation he hasn't been in since he first became involved in the UK media. Also his credibility as 'King' maker will be lost.
As others have cautioned, it is naive to dismiss the influence and power of the right-wing press, and I personally think due to its influence the Tories are much more likely to poll in the low 30's rather than mid 20's come the GE. How they themselves respond to a Tory defeat, if it happens, will be interesting. Will they double down on the rightward move, or readjust to align with the result of the election? My guess is the former.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 9, 2024 18:14:04 GMT
I still find it difficult to fathom how former committed Labour voters in areas which strongly voted Brexit in 2016 still see the present-day Tory party as representing their interests. The Brexit issue is now very much in the background - and likely to remain there for years to come. The reasons that they voted Tory are no longer relevant. Corbyn is now long gone - as is Johnson now. What is it about the Tory record of recent years that such people find so appealing? They see Labour as too interested in the problems of minorities of various sorts and not enough in the white working class. Not saying they are right, but that's the issue. In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside?
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 9, 2024 18:19:05 GMT
Thank you so much eor - yippee, I didn't come in last this year. Go me!
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 9, 2024 18:21:07 GMT
It possibly indicates that they have almost no hope in the future and resentment is the key motivator. There seems a total absence of hope now from right wing narratives generally, especially here and in the US. It's all about fear and distrust/resentment of the 'other', foreign or domestic (educated liberals).I have an interesting story. This morning on the bus, I was talking to an old lady (who I had never met before and who had started the conversation). She lives in Wembley, is Colombian (German father and Colombian mother) and grew up in South Africa. When she was orphaned she came to Britain and has lived here ever since. Now with her background I might have expected her to have been a Remainer, but no she voted for Brexit because she disliked the EU. What she really appreciated was the UK before it joined the EU when it provided a welcome for her rather than the UK in the EU which allowed in other Europeans but discriminated against people like her coming from outside Europe. We need to remember that people voted for Brexit for a whole range of reasons, some of which were not easily explainable. Just to clarify I wasn't talking about their voting for brexit, reasons for that have been done to death. I was referring to what JamesE mentioned about the apparent continuing likelihood of the residents of places like Mansfield to vote tory despite the evidence of their eyes.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 18:30:08 GMT
Without quite using the word you are accusing all Leave voters of being racist. I and a number of people I know voted Leave because of the EU's lack of democratic accountability and the spineless attitude of our own governments in enacting most EU rules and regulations via statutory instruments. I really dont recall democratic accountability being a hot topic. Control by Brussels yes, whereas in reality its more true we controlled them, based on how often we got our way. There was a promise of loads of extra money for the NHS, and any other cause you chose to name. That was always impossible, the extra administrative costs were likely to eat up what had been our contributions and more besides. Getting rid of immigrants was a very hot topic, which we could do once we had back control. Which ignored the fact we always had control of people coming from outside europe, and we have since encouraged yet more to come. Plus we lost control of boat people crossing from France, which we used to be able to just send back. The biggest thing leave voters had in common was they believed they would either beenfit personally or at least be no worse off. Hence the big red bus campaign, to persuade people there would be a surplus from leaving. That was what decided it. On top of this, they made increasingly unlikely promises but promised everyone what they wanted, even though it was obviously impossible to satisfy all as some were flatly contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 9, 2024 18:36:12 GMT
If writs are not moved by close of Commons business tomorrow, by elections at Wellingborough and Kingswood will not happen before 22nd February.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 9, 2024 19:03:38 GMT
They see Labour as too interested in the problems of minorities of various sorts and not enough in the white working class. Not saying they are right, but that's the issue. In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside? Johnson in 2019 successfully set out to appeal to them with 'levelling up'. There has been little attempt to deliver this and Sunak very definitely doesn't have the same agenda or personality. However, given Labour is promising very little on redistribution of wealth (to do so might frighten off middle-class liberals) the next logical step for such folk is to end up in the siren arms of Farage and Tice. The reality around the world is that populists (invariably led and funded by very rich people) don't deliver for the workers either - Trump courted industrial workers but in office cut taxes for the rich. It is easy to sneer at this group as racists, etc., but they have had a rough deal out the universal embrace of neo-liberal ideology over the last 45 years. For what its worth, my solution is not to throw the aforementioned minorities under the bus in pursuit of working class votes, but rather to make economic regeneration a front and centre priority Done cleverly this could be a form of redistribution by stealth, so not frightening the key middle-class voters, while still offering some hope to the de-industrialised areas.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 9, 2024 19:30:53 GMT
In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside? Johnson in 2019 successfully set out to appeal to them with 'levelling up'. There has been little attempt to deliver this and Sunak very definitely doesn't have the same agenda or personality. However, given Labour is promising very little on redistribution of wealth (to do so might frighten off middle-class liberals) the next logical step for such folk is to end up in the siren arms of Farage and Tice. The reality around the world is that populists (invariably led and funded by very rich people) don't deliver for the workers either - Trump courted industrial workers but in office cut taxes for the rich. It is easy to sneer at this group as racists, etc., but they have had a rough deal out the universal embrace of neo-liberal ideology over the last 45 years. For what its worth, my solution is not to throw the aforementioned minorities under the bus in pursuit of working class votes, but rather to make economic regeneration a front and centre priority Done cleverly this could be a form of redistribution by stealth, so not frightening the key middle-class voters, while still offering some hope to the de-industrialised areas. I can agree with that. Blair began the alienation of the traditional white working class vote as clearly indicated by the collapse in turnout in 2001 when so many sat on their hands. On the other hand , such voters had little taste for the leftwing policy packages as offered by Corbyn - though their response is likely to be influenced by who was offering them! On the whole, these people despised Thatcher , and I remain puzzled that they look to the Tories at all now - particularly since Johnson was ousted. Why would those who voted for Foot and Kinnock in preference to Thatcher now prefer Sunak to Starmer?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 19:31:03 GMT
I see from the ITV documentary that postmasters were contractually obliged to make good any shortfall, whatever the cause. So if the computer system was creating the shortfalls, logically then those postmasters would be required to keep on paying. Sounds like a nice little earner!
A fundamental initial lie seems to have been that no remote access to local post office terminals was possible. Whereas it seems every single transaction was recorded centrally at Fujitsus head quarters. If a communication glitch occurred, then the failed transaction had to be manually re-entered into the sytem by staff centrally at Fujitsu. Said staff had the ability to alter any record within the system anywhere. So that immediately raises two big issues. The first whether it was even possible for these staff to correct every possible failed transaction. The second, that they might make a mistake, or worse yet engage in some fraud themselves.
Its hard to see how this could not have been known by post office managemnt. The documentary reports that a postmaster union rep found out when given a tour of the Fujitsu headquarters, where staff demonstrated how they did this. If they gave such tours to the union rep, surely they must have explained to PO management what they were doing? Much, much earlier.
PO seem largely to have relied upon threatening people with court action for fraud, but offering them a lesser charge if they promised to repay the money. Obviously, they hadnt stolen any money. Nor it seems was the PO actually able to prove fraud, they just relied on persuading people to plead guilty.
While there were hundreds of postmasters affected, PO management denied to them all that anyone else was experiencing the same issues. Thats an obvious lie. Its hard to see any reason why they would have made this lie, except that if it was known hundreds of previously reliable people were all experiencing this, it casts sevre doubt on the reliability of the system as a whole. PO must have known there was a serious problem very early in this whole affair.
All in all, PO relied on witholding evidence which would have exhonerated these people, even if only on the criminal measure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ther obviously was strong reasonable doubt. Frankly, on the civil measures of balance of probability, which is more likely, that all these people suddenly became crooks, or the brand new system was responsible?
Now this then raises the question, why did PO cover all this up? They must have realised what was going on pretty early on. But they continued falsely prosecuting their staff regardless. Were they acting under government instructions when they did this? Even oblique instructions like 'we cannot afford any bad publicity'.
Since we now know the system failed, and so there isnt any evidnce of malice or fraud by fujitsu employees, it has to be concluded the stystem made many, many errors. You might expect if it was creating fictional losses, it should also have been creating fictional gains. And aside from these cases where PO took action, their first advice to everyone was to make up shortfalls from their own pockets. So if there were 700 criminally proceeded against, how many thousands just made up missing money, which the system in effect stole from them?
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 9, 2024 19:36:13 GMT
In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside? Johnson in 2019 successfully set out to appeal to them with 'levelling up'. There has been little attempt to deliver this and Sunak very definitely doesn't have the same agenda or personality. However, given Labour is promising very little on redistribution of wealth (to do so might frighten off middle-class liberals) the next logical step for such folk is to end up in the siren arms of Farage and Tice. The reality around the world is that populists (invariably led and funded by very rich people) don't deliver for the workers either - Trump courted industrial workers but in office cut taxes for the rich. It is easy to sneer at this group as racists, etc., but they have had a rough deal out the universal embrace of neo-liberal ideology over the last 45 years. For what its worth, my solution is not to throw the aforementioned minorities under the bus in pursuit of working class votes, but rather to make economic regeneration a front and centre priority Done cleverly this could be a form of redistribution by stealth, so not frightening the key middle-class voters, while still offering some hope to the de-industrialised areas. It isn't at all easy to "sneer" at working class people who have slipped into economic hardship as "racists" because the vast majority of them aren't. Quite often they cohabit with ethnic minorities much more amenably than those who walk in different and more affluent shoes. Those of them who are clearly racist, which a small minority may be, should have those views decried, surely, irrespective of why they came to hold them. As should those living in the shires too if they hold racist views. Who anywhere is sneering at a whole group of people and labelling them as racists? This appears to be a case of self-loathing or are you straying into "legitimate concerns" territory and excusing racism amongst economically disadvantaged people and, indirectly, sneering back at metropolitan elites who you feel are lazily labelling them all homogenously. I'm genuinely confused. Who is sneering at who and why?
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 9, 2024 20:27:46 GMT
For those interested in Scottish politics here is,a link to Sarwar's recent speech which sets out UK Labour’s pitch to Scottish voters in 2024: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/labourlist.org/2024/01/read-full-anas-sarwar-speech-more-mps-gives-scottish-labour-a-seat-at-table/%3fampIt will no doubt warm the circles of British nationalist and unionist hearts. A few points from another perspective: 1. Sarwar used to bang the drum for the Brown proposals on constitutional reform even, somewhat strangely, travelling to London to do so. Now not a word about them so it is clear that "entrenching devolution", abolotion of the HoL etc are now dead in the wate. 2. His claim that Labour is the party of devolution is at odds with Starmer's and his team's animosity to Drakeford in general and also Khan's use of mayoral powers in London in particular. Perhaps more true to say that UK Labour is the party of devolution if devolved entities fovwhatxUK Labourzat Westminster want and nothing more. 3. He majors on employment rights but none of this would be an issue in Scotland if employment law had been devolved ( as the Scottish TUC wants) or Scotlandzwas independent. 4 It's also bold to make an issue of economic growth when the economy is reserved to Westminster and Labour supports Brexit. 5. Theere is an implicit threat that if Scotland does not vote Labour UK Labour will ignore its chosen representatives ( who will only be able to "protest") and Scottish interests will not ve "at the heart" ( whatever that means) of a UK Labour Government
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 9, 2024 20:42:29 GMT
They see Labour as too interested in the problems of minorities of various sorts and not enough in the white working class. Not saying they are right, but that's the issue. In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside? Has it though? I would say the Tories have next to no chance of retaining those Red Wall seats like Blyth, Wrexham and even Mansfield (which they narrowly won in 2017, but comfortably in 2019). It is easy to forget what it was like in 2019 with Spiderwoman and Bercow vs the hero of Brexit Johnson, all now evaporated.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 20:50:52 GMT
It isn't at all easy to "sneer" at working class people who have slipped into economic hardship as "racists" because the vast majority of them aren't. Quite often they cohabit with ethnic minorities much more amenably than those who walk in different and more affluent shoes. Those of them who are clearly racist, which a small minority may be, should have those views decried, surely, irrespective of why they came to hold them. As should those living in the shires too if they hold racist views. Who anywhere is sneering at a whole group of people and labelling them as racists? You seem to be defining a racist as only someone with extremely strong views. Many, many people have a prejudice to some degree. At bottom, we all do.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 9, 2024 20:53:20 GMT
In itself that is unlikely to be a new factor - I recall that being said at the time of the 1987 election. Moreover, it does not explain why they would now see the Tories as serving their interests. Why has the hatred of the Tories -which endured for generations - suddenly been put aside? Has it though? I would say the Tories have next to no chance of retaining those Red Wall seats like Blyth, Wrexham and even Mansfield (which they narrowly won in 2017, but comfortably in 2019). It is easy to forget what it was like in 2019 with Spiderwoman and Bercow vs the hero of Brexit Johnson, all now evaporated. To be fair Mansfield has been drifting demographically away from Labour over many years. The seat very nearly fell to the Tories in 1987 - although that was still then affected by post Miners' Strike bitterness and divisions.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 9, 2024 20:57:42 GMT
I see from the ITV documentary that postmasters were contractually obliged to make good any shortfall, whatever the cause. So if the computer system was creating the shortfalls, logically then those postmasters would be required to keep on paying. Sounds like a nice little earner! I'm not sure if this is a naive question, but if a "simple" computer bug, wouldn't you expect some randomness in whether there was a surplus or a shortfall? Convenient for the Post Office that it always seems to have worked in their favour, no? As for the future, then first priority must be justice for sub postmasters and compensation, but I really hope it doesn't end there. The only problem may be deciding where to draw a line with prosecutions, but I really hope prosecutions are brought and people get sent to prison.
|
|