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 21:05:26 GMT
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? I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples. Of course actual racism, homophobia and the rest, should always be called out and opposed where ever it comes from, but, like you, I think the white working class are much less prone to this than some imagine and that if there was a greater commitment to looking at the rampant economic inequality in society, they wouldn't actually be greatly bothered about supposed 'culture war' issues.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 21:09:27 GMT
Watching some of the ITV documentary now i can see why people are getting rather upset, and indeed why con are trying to blame this on Ed Davies. Its blindingly obvious it is impossible the post office was not aware it was falsely accusing people of fraud. No one could have looked at the statistics we now know about what happened and believed this was real fraud. Moreover the documentary implies they took active steps to prevent the fact of how many people were being accused from getting out, so they obviously knew it would break their case if it did.
As to Vennells, she was either incompetent or indeed negligent in managing the PO to alow a culture to exist where such a coverup could happen. Or she actively took part in one. Its interesting that after her sterling work at the post office, she was appointed to run a health trust. And worked for the cabinet office. I wonder why they needed someone with experience of fraud coverups? It seems she lost her cabinet office job the day before it was going to be outed by a debate in parliament.
You'd have to ask how come she got these other jobs, when she had already been forced to resign from the PO because of what had been happening. It almost looks as if someone decided she needed to be looked after for her sterling work on behalf of the government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 21:22:46 GMT
I wonder if the recent examples of elections in the US and the UK demonstrate that whilst what some might be referred to as the hard right or loony right can win the same does does not apply to their opposites on the left?
Trump beat Clinton and both May and Johnson beat Corbyn. Not that I remotely think of Hillary Clinton as extreme but she was probably perceived as so in America as compared to Biden.
I accept that these terms are not at all satisfactory but I’m sure most of you will get the point - and the moral. In order to gain effective power the left absolutely have to compromise, like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 9, 2024 21:23:04 GMT
Watching some of the ITV documentary now i can see why people are getting rather upset, and indeed why con are trying to blame this on Ed Davies. Its blindingly obvious it is impossible the post office was not aware it was falsely accusing people of fraud. No one could have looked at the statistics we now know about what happened and believed this was real fraud. Moreover the documentary implies they took active steps to prevent the fact of how many people were being accused from getting out, so they obviously knew it would break their case if it did. As to Vennells, she was either incompetent or indeed negligent in managing the PO to alow a culture to exist where such a coverup could happen. Or she actively took part in one. Its interesting that after her sterling work at the post office, she was appointed to run a health trust. And worked for the cabinet office. I wonder why they needed someone with experience of fraud coverups? It seems she lost her cabinet office job the day before it was going to be outed by a debate in parliament. "Paula Vennells: Ex-Post Office boss was shortlisted to be Bishop of London" ......"The Archbishop of Canterbury pushed her application and was seen as a supporter of her, two of the sources added." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190It's surprising how far the tentacled arms of the establishment reach. The Lib Dems were part of that once, before they abandoned their congregation in 2010.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 9, 2024 21:25:06 GMT
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. That's the issue with the Red Wall (and new Blue wall) I think in the longer term but not at this next election which is looking like a landslide Tory rejection anyway. Anthony always said that demographically identical people in the North voted a different way to those same groups in the South so in a sense you could say the North is catching up with this trend as their previous ties to industrial unionised workplaces start to disappear. Equally people in the cities are moving the other way because of inability to own their homes (security) so people across the North are more likely to own their own homes and as you drift South it gets less likely and in London "pitiful". Home ownership and the things that go with this (security, keeping what you have) doesn't make for such a LOC outlook once you discount how Thatcher treated your grandparents. Financial insecurity does make you seek political change. Obviously there is deprived status which may be more common in the North but's that's also present in London in a big way and every area really and the deprived don't tend to vote. Beyond that, just on house prices alone, if you do have any sort of secure job in the North then you've a much better chance of being comfortable and less desire to be radical.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 9, 2024 21:38:15 GMT
"Paula Vennells: Ex-Post Office boss was shortlisted to be Bishop of London" ......"The Archbishop of Canterbury pushed her application and was seen as a supporter of her, two of the sources added." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190It's surprising how far the tentacled arms of the establishment reach. The Lib Dems were part of that once, before they abandoned their congregation in 2010. This has got bugger all to do with lib dems. The one thing very clear about the lib coalition with con was that con steamrollered them on every single decision. I see Vennels was appointed post office CEO just after Davey was removed from being the post office minister. At that same date post offices limited became a separate company independant of Royal mail. It seems it is still wholly owned by the secretary of state, and keeps receiving subsidies. So it would be the secretary of state who owns it and to whom it is therefore answerable in all respects. Its sounds as though it was never formally answerable to Davey, only to Davey's boss. How handy for the Cameron government.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 9, 2024 21:42:19 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/%3famp(1). It 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. (2). 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 (1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence. I would prefer it if you remained in the Union if only because I dread the years of negotiations that would follow its dissolution. Brexit has wearied me of bureaucratic proceduralism. A selfish viewpoint, but one can be selfish when one has no influence whatsoever on the matter under discussion. Not even a poxy vote. (2) Bit garbled. Two of my favourite films are Whisky Galore & esp The Maggie. They present a folksy, mythical view of Scotland of course. Dryly wily Scots put one over the pompous Brits & Yanks (the colonized v the usurpers is the message: in Whisky, the customs men are neo-Gestapo), tho the balance of forces is quite even in the Maggie between the Yank (as credited) & the cunning & devious Scots. ( Local Hero, is in this mould). The film contains one of those brilliant performances that directors can get out of child actors - "wee Dougie" the only character on the "puffer" that has any sense. (He made no more more films and became a drunk). The Director A. McKendrick, a Scot by upbringing, has little renown. Perhaps because his brilliant films are hard to classify. Whisky Galore! (1949) The Man in the White Suit (1951) Mandy (1952) The Maggie (1954) The Ladykillers (1955) Sweet Smell of Success (1957) Sammy Going South (1963) A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) Features Martin Amis as child! (No match for wee Dougie). Don't Make Waves (1967)
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 9, 2024 21:53:24 GMT
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 Interesting. Have you looked at the proportions of each SEG that are now uncommitted (WNV/Refused/Undecided) compared with previously?
I had a look at Ipsos Scottish Political Monitor for May and November 2023 to note changes for those with a VI, both in the party shares of each SEG and the profile of each party by SEG.
Party share of SEG change - Con AB -2% : C1 -18% : C2 +5% : DE +15% Lab AB 0% : C1 +3% : C2 -4% : DE 0% LD AB -13% : C1 +6% : C2 -5% : DE +12% SNP AB 0% : C1 +4% : C2 0% : DE -4%
Which looked highly improbable, until I noted that there is a differential effect in the decreased proportion no longer having an intention to vote. AB -8% : C1 -6% : C2 -16% : DE -12%
That would seem to go a fair way to explaining why our two most right wing parties seem to show an increased share of the DE vote! They keep their committed voters in these segments (eg older widows who have never worked and hard line Unionists) while ex Labour & SNP voters are less sure of their vote (if any).
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 9, 2024 22:20:49 GMT
(1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence. I would prefer it if you remained in the Union if only because I dread the years of negotiations that would follow its dissolution. Brexit has wearied me of bureaucratic proceduralism. A selfish viewpoint, but one can be selfish when one has no influence whatsoever on the matter under discussion. Not even a poxy vote. Your comment is rather garbled, I'm afraid.
On our side of the indy debate, we have no objection to those who wish Scotland to be an independent state being labelled "Scottish nationalists", just so long as those who wish the UK state to continue are labelled as "UK (or British) nationalists". It's the discriminatory labelling that Unionists use (as if they don't have a preferred form of state) that is objectionable.
Your suggestion that no one on here opposes Scottish independence is simply untrue.
|
|
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 22:42:54 GMT
After my suggestion that Aston Villa performed rather poorly against Middlesborough (who to be fair were equally dull) it is only reasonable to note that Chelsea were entirely unable to do any better: Middlesborough 1, Chelsea 0.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 9, 2024 22:49:26 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? 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? I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples. Of course actual racism, homophobia and the rest, should always be called out and opposed where ever it comes from, but, like you, I think the white working class are much less prone to this than some imagine and that if there was a greater commitment to looking at the rampant economic inequality in society, they wouldn't actually be greatly bothered about supposed 'culture war' issues. Agree very much with your second paragraph but I'm less sure about the gist of your first. Are there really many people, either on this site or elsewhere, who have said, or even think, that the "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners"?? Maybe one or two, but the danger with this sort of attribution of sentiment is that we generalise from the particular and pay far more attention to rants from oddballs than they deserve. It also, maybe unintentionally, subtly invalidates the observation that, on occasions, voters will be ill-informed and misled on certain issues and that pockets of xenophobia and racism do actually exist at all levels in our society.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 9, 2024 22:59:29 GMT
With regard to your last point, a quick shout out for 'Showboat' (1936), another of my favourites. Not only does it include sassy Irene Dunne, who you mentioned, but it also gives prominent roles to Hattie McDaniel, (later to win an Oscar in GWTW), but also the magnificent Paul Robeson. Apart from Dunne's unfortunate blackface number, which was unremarkable in 1936, the film's treatment of race is quite sympathetic, certainly considering it was made nearly 90 years ago. Add to that a wonderful score and superb cast, (Dunne is almost heartbreaking), and you have an epic film which I like to think of as a musical 'Gone With The Wind'. Directed by gay Englishman James Whale, who managed to produce iconic films in two different genres, musicals, (Showboat), and horror, (Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein). No mean feat! For anyone unfamiliar, I offer this contribution. youtu.be/df4VdyGIqJ8?si=FCtYKsXrHIXIQNPiSelf-indulgent? The boys are always on about cherries, toffees, sherbert lemons, each to their own pastures. But having listed a few films earlier, find that people like talking about em. The utube was fab. Such good quality print & the production values crammed into 5 minutes! Never seen it, as no DVD, screening. But now see Criterion released Blueray (2020). Ill stump up 17.50. Imitation of Life, '30s & '50s (Sirk) v rare films that broach race. The latter was slagged by many critics as a twin mother/daughter weepie: some never even mentioned race! Guilt I think that you could watch a 1,000 old Hollywood fils & conclude USA was a 100% white. League of Gentleman (1960) a fave. It's basically a war film that subverts the genre. 1. Group of ill-assorted, conflicting misfits are assembled. 2. Capable leader (Hawkins of course) welds them slowly into efficient, cohesive & rehabilitated fighting unit. 3.They complete mission successfully & heroically. But instead of beating the Nazis they rob a bank! Bryan Forbes the writer points out that every cast member, including himself, served in WW2, which is probably why the hilarious scene where they mount a fake inspection of an army base to cover up an arms raid is so well done. Bilko marks a similar sociological moment. Soldiers are slackers not heroes: the army is just another big institution. I can recall one ref to WW2. Bilko says to someone in passing: havn't seen you since Guadalcanal! You're in for a treat! Quite right, it's been almost impossible to see for decades. MGM allegedly wanted to buy the original negative to suppress it because of unfavourable comparison with their 1951 version. I vaguely remember it being shown on BBC in the mid '70s, and C4 showed it in the mid '80s. Apart from that, nothing. As soon as I heard it was coming out on Blu-ray, I was down to HMV like a shot! I love it. As I said previously, it has an almost epic feel to it, and never ceases to entertain, impress and even move every time I watch it.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jan 9, 2024 23:01:04 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 I was just listening to the Alastair Campbell, Rory Stewart podcast 'The rest is politics'. They were commenting as to how highly thought of Sarwar is. They said he seems to have a nice manner about him and is 'one for the future'.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 9, 2024 23:05:44 GMT
(1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence. I would prefer it if you remained in the Union if only because I dread the years of negotiations that would follow its dissolution. Brexit has wearied me of bureaucratic proceduralism. A selfish viewpoint, but one can be selfish when one has no influence whatsoever on the matter under discussion. Not even a poxy vote. Your comment is rather garbled, I'm afraid.
On our side of the indy debate, we have no objection to those who wish Scotland to be an independent state being labelled "Scottish nationalists", just so long as those who wish the UK state to continue are labelled as "UK (or British) nationalists". It's the discriminatory labelling that Unionists use (as if they don't have a preferred form of state) that is objectionable.
Your suggestion that no one on here opposes Scottish independence is simply untrue.21. I meant garbled in the literal sense that it was distorted & hence unclear in meaning because of the central typo! "Perhaps more true to say that UK Labour is the party of devolution if devolved entities fovwhatxUK Labourzat Westminster want and nothing more". Now do you understand? 2. Yr memory of yr previous views of the meaning of nationalism, to whom the word nationalist applies, & yr claim that the words are not applicable to yr own views is faulty. And no I'm not going to root thru yr 5,000 posts to prove my point. If you have changed yr opinions, for whatever reason, & are now prepared to don the label - fine. It can be applied to yr opponents. 3. 90% of the posters on here are LOC. None of them opposes Independence. They may not want it: but they don't oppose it. You do understand the difference I assume? If there are one or two posters who oppose it, I may have missed them. That is the disadvantage of not living on the site. Why don't you just name them. They can always accept or disdain the label. 4. And if you reply, spare me the usual nastiness & indeed abuse you exhibit at some stage in an exchange. I'm not interested.
|
|
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 23:22:38 GMT
I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples. Of course actual racism, homophobia and the rest, should always be called out and opposed where ever it comes from, but, like you, I think the white working class are much less prone to this than some imagine and that if there was a greater commitment to looking at the rampant economic inequality in society, they wouldn't actually be greatly bothered about supposed 'culture war' issues. Agree very much with your second paragraph but I'm less sure about the gist of your first. Are there really many people, either on this site or elsewhere, who have said, or even think, that the "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners"?? Maybe one or two, but the danger with this sort of attribution of sentiment is that we generalise from the particular and pay far more attention to rants from oddballs than they deserve. It also, maybe unintentionally, subtly invalidates the observation that, on occasions, voters will be ill-informed and misled on certain issues and that pockets of xenophobia and racism do actually exist at all levels in our society. I will leave it there as I have no desire to name names or start quoting bits of text. Site users will have to form their own views, especially about the rather tribal nature of some of the Brexit debating over the years. However, I am not sure why you think I am generalising - all I said was "it is easy to sneer", nowhere did I suggest that everyone does it.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,265
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 9, 2024 23:42:23 GMT
The traitors lawyers tying themselves in knots trying to defend the position that a president has absolute immunity for any presidential act up to and including assassination of a political rival or insurrection. They've tried to argue given that this position might actually be too extreme even for some republican voters that a president can be criminally prosecuted but only if successfully impeached first. That of course means that if 35 out of 100 senators weren't prepared to impeach a president for murder then he couldn't be tried for murder but if it was 34 he could be. It's an absurd and self contradictory position it argued absolute immunity while arguing that there isn't immunity . It also pushes the notion of a presidential act to include sedition and insurrection which are specifically grounds for exclusion of a presidential candidate. There are only three grounds for exclusion age, place of birth and insurrection, a convicted murderer could stand for president from prison and serve from prison if they won. Number 45 is charged with multiple counts of insurrection. The DC appeal court are going to reject the traitors claim , it's highly likely that even the tainted christofascists in the U.S.Supreme court will do the same. Refusal to do so gives a U.S. president the same immunity as our unelected hereditary head of state , but of course the U.S. President exercises vastly more power. youtu.be/lCOpKjwtKIk?si=O6SIfGsKALARNTeZ
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 9, 2024 23:50:59 GMT
Watching some of the ITV documentary now i can see why people are getting rather upset, and indeed why con are trying to blame this on Ed Davies. Its blindingly obvious it is impossible the post office was not aware it was falsely accusing people of fraud. No Danny - no-one is trying to "blame this on Ed Davies". There are certainly people within the Post Office who may well have to face criminal charges, but I don't think Ed Davey (let's get his name right, at least?) is seen by anyone in that category. But that's not to say he doesn't have some awkward questions to answer, and more so than his predecessors. As you should be aware if now watching the drama/documentary, it was roughly around the time he took over that (thanks to Alan Bates) the sub-postmasters were forming together and the scale of what was happening was becoming obvious. He also took over soon after the first report was published in "Computer Weekly". His predecessors may have some justification for claiming "we just weren't aware" - he can't use that excuse. And his other problem is that whilst there may be others whose inactions may have been just as bad, then in many cases they may no longer be in positions of authority. Whilst Ed Davey is currently leader of the UKs third biggest political party. His current excuse is "but the PO told me there was nothing in the claims". He may not "be to blame for the affair", but to just meekly accept the word of the PO, in spite of the stories by then becoming public knowledge, just doesn't say a lot for his judgement. I don't believe this at all reflects badly on the Lib Dems as a party as such - but their danger is of being tarred with a brush of having an incompetent leader. I don't think action should be taken against him in the way it certainly should against some in the Post Office, but if he really has the interests of his party at heart I do think he should stand stand down as leader, and the longer he holds out the more harm he will do them. As to Vennells, she was either incompetent or indeed negligent in managing the PO to alow a culture to exist where such a coverup could happen. Or she actively took part in one. No, Vennells was neither incompetent or negligent - she actively took part in the cover up. There is little doubt she was well aware of flaws in the Horizon system whilst lying about it. If Ed Davey may be seen to have shown poor judgement, she has far, far worse to answer for. And I hope the police are actively now looking into such. And most of all, hats off to ITV for going ahead with what is likely to be the most influential TV programme for years. I was aware of the basic stories about sub-postmasters being wrongly accused of fraud due to a faulty computer system, but had assumed the cases had been settled by now. Obviously not. Maybe the problem is a very complicated tale, coming out bit by bit, and not really easily told in a 2 minute news package. And again, hats off to ITV for not only telling the story in an understandable form, but making it a very watchable drama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2024 0:07:23 GMT
oldnat“ On our side of the indy debate, we have no objection to those who wish Scotland to be an independent state being labelled "Scottish nationalists", just so long as those who wish the UK state to continue are labelled as "UK (or British) nationalists". Exciting news! Let’s draw up a formal contract for those in the least bit fucking bothered. Personally I don’t feel “nationalist” at all - English or British etc. (Apart from footy etc and even that nothing like I was in 1966/1970/1066 and so on.)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,265
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 10, 2024 0:15:48 GMT
lensComputer weekly published its articles around a year before the coalition government took office having first been contacted by Mr Bates In 2004. In September 2009 again nearly a year before the coalition. Alan Bates and other victims of the scandal set up the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance (JFSA) While this doesn't exonerate Davey from any possible culpability it doesn't mean his predecessors or subsequent post holders labour, lib dem or Tory don't have at least equal questions to address. He also was the only postal minister up to 2019 to actually have a meeting with Bates as representative of the JSFA ,the meeting took place in October 2010. It's pretty clear that there's some politically motivated buck passing and deflection going on here. It's also incorrect to say people aren't trying to blame Davey deputy chair of the Tory party 30p Lee Anderson just yesterday accused Davey of being responsible for the incarceration of post masters and in some cases their deaths. The fact that Anderson is a moron doesn't mean it wasn't said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2024 0:50:11 GMT
steveRe language: “ Usage of Moron The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. These uses were broadly rejected by the close of the 20th century and are now considered offensive.” I know you intend to be offensive with regard to Anderson, but I would personally describe him as a deliberate liar and simply a very nasty person, rather than use your term. Just seems more to the point to me. I can’t stand the man - and how is in the position he is in the Tory Party, fuck knows. One wonders what leaders such as John Major thinks about it. I don’t think he has low intelligence though.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 10, 2024 0:53:15 GMT
pjw1961 The sneering question. "I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples."
I'm not always on the site but I'm not sure people have sneered in quite the way you say. (1) The problem with paraphrasing for effect, rather than quoting from actual examples, is that it makes it difficult to prove or disprove your claims about what people have said on this site. You are creating a contrived filter that may distort what people do in fact comment? . (2) What I do recall is that supporters of Brexit on this site have claimed that the opponents of Brexit stated/believed that Brexit's supporters are dim & racist. There are now two sets of paraphasers somewhat bizarrely claming the same thing! I would prefer some direct evidence. That's not v clear but it's as good as I can get it, (3) What remainers have said is that in general leavers are less well-educated than remainers & are more concerned with immigration. Both things are true. UKIP went nowhere as long as it merely argued for leaving the EU on constitutional, abstract nationalistic grounds. The EU was invisible as a concern. As we all know: the polling trackers show that: it was not until Farage linked the EU to increaing migration from eastern Europe that its polling/electoral success vaulted. I did once look at the kind of people UKIP put up as candidates when they stood everywhere. It made gruesome reading: many of them were out-and-out racists. (BTW I have removed my curse from yr house & progeny & removed the pins from the doll that resembles you.)
|
|
|
Post by bendo on Jan 10, 2024 0:57:41 GMT
"Paula Vennells: Ex-Post Office boss was shortlisted to be Bishop of London" ......"The Archbishop of Canterbury pushed her application and was seen as a supporter of her, two of the sources added." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190It's surprising how far the tentacled arms of the establishment reach. The Lib Dems were part of that once, before they abandoned their congregation in 2010. This has got bugger all to do with lib dems. The one thing very clear about the lib coalition with con was that con steamrollered them on every single decision. Well they should have seen that coming before becoming tory enablers and jumping in bed with them. As much as it upsets some, there will be a lot of voters who won't forget.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 10, 2024 1:09:34 GMT
On to more serious matters than Lib Dem obsessions…. From the US Guardian: “ Nikki Haley’s support has peaked in New Hampshire, or perhaps not. Ahead of the state’s 23 January Republican primary, a Boston Globe/Suffolk University/USA Today poll reports she has 26% support compared with Trump’s 46%. But a CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire shows a much closer race, with Trump at 39%, and Haley at 32%.” Although I follow US politics I’m by no means that knowledgable but….. if Trump’s OP support is less than 50% does that not justify what I have said for a while now, which is that once his opponents are reduced to the leading one then Trump is very vulnerable? Like Batty I just don’t see Trump being the candidate in the end given all the baggage he carries. Surely even in America that will count against him with sufficient Republican* Party members. (*Spellcheck offered ‘Replicant’ which seemed apposite. ) I agree it's definitely a risk for him if opposition consolidates around one person early. The problems with that are twofold tho - firstly it has to happen really quickly, otherwise too many states will have voted and given many, most or all of their delegates to Trump such that the eventual consolidated opponent would end up having to beat him by unrealistically substantial margins later on to catch up. The other problem is that it probably relies on everyone else being forced out of the race - if you're DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamay or even Christie, you're probably thinking just hang in there, wait for the others to fold, become the last guy standing and if/when Trump implodes, you're running for President against an 81 year old with a dismal approval rating and you're all but home. That's an almost delusionally powerful motivation to stay in, and keep splitting the non-Trump vote, with the risk that you don't admit your personal chance (almost certainly the last/only shot you'll get at this in your whole career) is hopeless until Trump's already so far ahead that he can't be caught by anyone else either. Christie's strategy seems entirely based on doing surprisingly well in New Hampshire, so I could see him walking away if he has a poor night there, because he's a footnote in polling everywhere else and he simply won't have the money to continue. But unless eg Haley does so well in New Hampshire that she becomes the de facto challenger to Trump, De Santis's campaign collapses and Ramaswamay accepts he'd just be burning his own money for no reason in carrying on, two or all three of them could well stay in until Super Tuesday six weeks later, by which point it probably wouldn't matter who the last one left is unless Trump were forced by the courts to withdraw.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 10, 2024 2:05:11 GMT
Thank you so much eor - yippee, I didn't come in last this year. Go me! Yeah thanks for letting me have that particular stage to myself this time lululemonmustdobetter , much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 10, 2024 2:35:30 GMT
On the New Hampshire polling @fecklessmiser referred to, the first couple of January polls are in and it's striking - they're just about within the MOE of each other for both Trump and Haley, tho barely. So 46-26 and 39-32 could both be toward the edges of a race that's "really" somewhere around 42-29, or at least one of these polls could just be very wrong. www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/republican-primary/2024/new-hampshireThere was a similar quirk in some of the earlier polling, where some polls differed quite a bit on the size of Trump's lead, but that was generally whether it was c30% or c15%; whether it's 20% or 7% with a couple of weeks to go is obviously a much bigger deal.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 10, 2024 2:57:57 GMT
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. Sorry but there will probably be a few late-night posts. I've just got back from a resounding victory at a distant venue. Anyway, you seem to be saying that certain minorities shouldn't have a voice or spokesmen etc. This doesn't sit right with me, however much you might disagree with that minority. What if someone said something similar about 'gays' or Irish or blacks or Jews? Would that be ok? Should we regret giving them a voice?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 10, 2024 3:00:47 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. 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? I'm not going to rehash all that again, I was simply objecting to steve's implication that Leave voters' motivation was racist. It may have been for some, but certainly not for anyone I know including all members of my UKIP branch.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 10, 2024 3:10:08 GMT
"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?" Of course not, but if we weren't in the EU no governing party could just steamroller through EU rules could they? Because of our government's weakness we had to leave. "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." I can't answer for others but I have said before that if the EU democratic accountability met my requirements (e.g. that the general public could kick out Commissioners) and that EU regulations were properly debated in Parliament then I would not have been so implacably opposed and might well have voted Remain.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 10, 2024 3:13:52 GMT
Why would those who voted for Foot and Kinnock in preference to Thatcher now prefer Sunak to Starmer? Because he's a slightly less cardboard cut-out?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 10, 2024 3:30:36 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. On your first question - No. That might have been true in the real olden days of actual insects getting into the valves but very unlikely in modern systems when a 'bug' is basically a programming error.
|
|