Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Has not India, as presently constituted, quite a large Muslin population? I seem to recall, too, a Mohammed someone, presumably Muslim, playing cricket for India, and a Hindu, who also played for Essex, playing for Pakistan.
India has a 1.3 billion population so obviously it has a few Muslims. However without Pakistan being created as a Muslim majority country with India being a Hindu majority country, then Muslims and Hindus would have fought for control of India in a civil war as soon as it had achieved independence
This is a quite startling claim that the migrants who drowned in the English Channel were left to do so by HM Coastguard who knew they were there and in trouble for many hours.
Has anyone seen this reported elsewhere?
It would merit criminal charges if true I would have thought.
Big if true, but it patently isn't. We know the incident happened near Calais, no way can that have been faked, so what are the Coastguard supposed to have been told? I can see on google maps that my cousin's boat in France has stopped moving?
Presumably they told the French coastguard...
Link says HM Coastguard because they were in UK waters
You said we know it happened near Calais. So why didn't the French respond?
They did, once a fishing vessel had found the bodies and broadcast a mayday. There was a large UK/France joint op. I was just commenting on the improbability of this tweet or instagram or whatever it is.
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Unfortunately we have absurd policies from both the left and right - the left which apparently want to encourage extremely dangerous trips by migrants without thinking through how they can be accommodated when they arrive; and the right who prefer dodgy rhetoric and floating fantasy solutions which they cannot deliver (wave machines?) without doing very much at all about the situation in reality.
I'd argue that most of the left doesn't correspond to your caricature. We definitely want more generous legal routes, precisely in order to deter extremely dangerous trips - if there was a fair chance of acceptance by applying to the Paris embassy (rather than virtually zero, as is currently the case), then (a) people with a decent chance of acceptance wouldn't need to risk their lives and (b) people who did risk their lives would almost certainly know that they didn't have a decent legal chance, and it would then be more reasonable to deport them where possible.
You'd be right in thinking that on the left we have a higher level of acceptance (I think my constituency could integrate say 50-100 legal migrants a year without too much difficulty), but nobody actually proposes completely unrestricted immigration - and that's a separate point anyway from wanting to give a decent alternative to the Channel madness.
On topic, does anyone know what boundary changes do to YC's constituency?
Someone downthread says the left get wound up by her - not especially, I'd say, but she represents continuity with the Blair/Brown era, which is a good thing if one wants experience and familiar names or a bad thing if one wants a decisive break with the past. Most left-wingers who I know would settle for a couple of identifiably progressive policies and let Starmer appoint whoever he reckons will appeal.
I do think some here are being silly in thinking HIPS is going to blight her appeal - I dount if more than 10% of the electorate remember what they were, and half of those will reckon they were a reasonable minor idea that didn't work out. There are worse stumbles in politics, not least in the history of the current Cabinet.
She's losing the bit with "Warmfield" in it, if I have this right, on the initial proposal.
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
Presumably if someone has Omicrom (or whatever it is called) the idea is it would be picked up in the pre departure PCR test, rather than 2+ days after they have arrived in the UK, having spread it around in that time on the plane, at the airport, on the way home, and with whoever they are staying with whilst supposedly in quarantine.
The theory is fine. But it will kill international travel for most people other than the very rich.
It takes us back to the position in the summer - which had a powerful deterrent effect, as I saw and found myself in Europe, with very few British travellers, tales of widespread cancellations, and the odd anecdote of families having paid large amounts to be able to travel. The logic, I guess, is that people are prevented from getting on a plane and infecting others. The downside is that they can end up stranded, often in unpleasant circumstances (there are some anecdotes from Americans on the TA forums) - a further deterrent to travel for those unable to afford an extended stay in their destination.
One can only hope these restrictions will be gone not long into next year.
I can't think of anyone who in their right mind would chance not being able to return to their own country. How much fun would you have on holiday wondering whether you would have to find another two weeks accommodation at the end of it.
That said, when I went to Greece last year and had an obligatory LFT test before departure the doc doing it was just about standing on the other side of the room and the swab only just touched my tongue. And moments later it was negative!!
I travelled both this year and last, had a great time both trips, and was involved in low risk activities, outside almost the entire time except for in the hotel. The risk (this year) of not being able to have returned home on time was there but I judged it to be low, and something I could have coped with if necessary.
That said, some of the Americans posting on TA being held in Italian or Spanish quarantine hotels weren't happy about it.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Has not India, as presently constituted, quite a large Muslin population? I seem to recall, too, a Mohammed someone, presumably Muslim, playing cricket for India, and a Hindu, who also played for Essex, playing for Pakistan.
India has a 1.3 billion population so obviously it has a few Muslims. However without Pakistan being created as a Muslim majority country with India being a Hindu majority country, then Muslims and Hindus would have fought for control of India in a civil war as soon as it had achieved independence
There are almost as many Muslims in India (~213 million) as there are in Pakistan (~221 million). Partition is, and always will be, a tragic farce.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
You dont cross the channel in a flimsy boat having (probably ) paid all your life savings and more to some serious criminals unless you are desparate especially with your family . Now there will always be a dangerous stretch of water between France and England and (perhaps sadly ) always some need for immigration control . The only thing to change is the desparation of the people who do this and that is not easy but it could start by not dividing people up as we do in all societies , getting rid on restrictions to work (and hence contribute) and creating less not more borders (hence my reason to vote REMAIN )
On Pakistan, actually caught a spot of news the other day. A Sri Lankan had been lynched for blasphemy.
yes burnt alive I believe - a good example of what people can do if they believe they have the state or god backing them - Another example is Nazi Germany or Medieval Christianity - We like to think we are civilised as individuals and virtuous but if we feel we have "right" on our side (ie some external authority backing ) then humans are capable of very bad acts
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Has not India, as presently constituted, quite a large Muslin population? I seem to recall, too, a Mohammed someone, presumably Muslim, playing cricket for India, and a Hindu, who also played for Essex, playing for Pakistan.
India has a 1.3 billion population so obviously it has a few Muslims. However without Pakistan being created as a Muslim majority country with India being a Hindu majority country, then Muslims and Hindus would have fought for control of India in a civil war as soon as it had achieved independence
I'm no expert on this; I remember it happening, and some of the stories which we featured in my parents newspaper (the Telegraph) but at 9 I wasn't really 'aware'. However, a quick glance at Wikipedia, suggests that the initial 'blame' should be placed at actions during the Curzon Viceroyalty. After all, before we British really got involved, in the 18th & 19th centuries, Hindus and Muslims had managed to coexist at least as well as, and often better than, Catholics and Protestants.
It would repay Sir Keir Starmer and his recently refreshed shadow cabinet to study what these examples of rare Labour winners [Wilson & Blair] tell us about what it takes to be a successful opposition. One clue is in the job title. You have to oppose effectively...exploiting those flaws in support of a pitiless account of why the incumbents are not fit to remain in government.
It is never enough to say things once when you are leader of the opposition. Sir Keir needs to be as unrelenting as his two successful predecessors were. During the 20 months that Sir Keir has been Labour leader, the performance of the shadow cabinet has been good in parts and invisible in others. The comprehensive reshuffle he executed last week was long overdue.
The consensus among both the Labour and Conservative MPs I have spoken to is that Sir Keir is now equipped with a much sharper top team...expected to bring more heft and bite to Labour as an attack machine, but that is only half the challenge. The other half is to turn Labour into a party that looks ready to govern. Voters can come to the conclusion that this government is deeply sleazy and highly incompetent and they will still re-elect the Tories if they are not convinced that Labour is making a superior offer.
If you haven’t got the ideas and you can’t express them with a crispness and clarity that will cut through to voters, then you have no business being in modern politics.
The most charitable thing to say about Sir Keir’s party is that framing and communicating a positive and persuasive account of what a Labour Britain would look like is still a work in progress.
You dont cross the channel in a flimsy boat having (probably ) paid all your life savings and more to some serious criminals unless you are desparate especially with your family . Now there will always be a dangerous stretch of water between France and England and (perhaps sadly ) always some need for immigration control . The only thing to change is the desparation of the people who do this and that is not easy but it could start by not dividing people up as we do in all societies , getting rid on restrictions to work (and hence contribute) and creating less not more borders (hence my reason to vote REMAIN )
Mr. Eagles, hope that's the case, but, if not, we saw what happened to Leclerc earlier this year.
It is I, Leclerc's accident in Monaco was much heavier than the Dutch shunt's crash yesterday.
I'm surprised they've not taken the penalty, it would put him behind his team mate and the two Alpha Tauris who would let him pass easily, so effectively a two place penalty.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Has not India, as presently constituted, quite a large Muslin population? I seem to recall, too, a Mohammed someone, presumably Muslim, playing cricket for India, and a Hindu, who also played for Essex, playing for Pakistan.
India has a 1.3 billion population so obviously it has a few Muslims. However without Pakistan being created as a Muslim majority country with India being a Hindu majority country, then Muslims and Hindus would have fought for control of India in a civil war as soon as it had achieved independence
A "few Muslims" in India? According to Wikipedia, it's 14.9%, or 195 million. That sounds like more than a few to me.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Has not India, as presently constituted, quite a large Muslin population? I seem to recall, too, a Mohammed someone, presumably Muslim, playing cricket for India, and a Hindu, who also played for Essex, playing for Pakistan.
India has a 1.3 billion population so obviously it has a few Muslims. However without Pakistan being created as a Muslim majority country with India being a Hindu majority country, then Muslims and Hindus would have fought for control of India in a civil war as soon as it had achieved independence
There are almost as many Muslims in India (~213 million) as there are in Pakistan (~221 million). Partition is, and always will be, a tragic farce.
So there would have been about 450 million Muslims in India without the creation of Pakistan then. Hindus would not have been so dominant and as I said without partition India would have ended up like Northern Ireland pre GFA and Israel-Palestine with in effect a civil war for decades.
You could not ignore Jinnah's direct action campaign, the attacks on Hindus by Muslims in summer 1946 and the reprisal attacks by Hindus on Muslims and the driving out of Hindus by Muslims in Rawalpindi in 1947 without leaving a legacy of civil war on Indian independence
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
There's far too many grid penalties in F1 nowadays. Decide the race on the track not pettifogging rules.
If there wasn't a cap/budget on engines/gearboxes etc the team with the biggest budget would win pretty much every race/championship, they'd change their gearbox and engine every race to get a boost.
And yet Cooper is an MP. She is smart and lucky. Good qualities to have.
Hips may have failed, but at least she tried to make home owning easier and more affordable. That’s a good thing. It’s not the first time that a minister was defeated by a blob of vested interests.
It was an extra cost and bureaucracy for house owners.
Vendor due diligence has its merits but it can’t be relied on.
For example you buy a house the vendor says is fine and has a high level survey that says it is ok. You buy the house and 6 months later have to spend a fortune.
But if you had done the work yourself, and paid for a proper structural survey, then you could have had a price adjustment or walked away before taking on the liability.
At best HIPS have no value. At worst they transfer risk to the buyer.
There wasn’t a “blob” that fought against them. They just weren’t a good idea. The concept of speeding up house sales was a good one, but this was the wrong approach
Mr. Away, point of order, most of the burnings were post-medieval. The first occurred under Henry IV. In terms of civilised behaviour to outsiders and prisoners, the conduct of the 11th century was generally far better than later ones.
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
At what point does the world acknowledge what seems obvious: this virus in now endemic?
Would love to be proven wrong by any boffins out there. (Foxy?)
He seems to think that we are going to have to live with covid for much longer, but is also arguing to maintain many of the mon-medical pandemic measures such as distancing, which have a large effect on businesses.
The new variant seems to make it even more clear that we are all getting it at some point, but thankfully we now have a wide variety of vaccines and treatments available to combat the worst effects of the virus.
“The longer this virus continues to spread in largely unvaccinated populations globally, the more likely it is that a variant that can overcome our vaccines and treatments will emerge,” he writes. “If that happens, we could be close to square one.
This is what I have been thinking for a while. If you have half the world treating Covid with indifference as they have no other option, then the virus will surely spread and mutate in these places. Who knows: they may even end up being more resilient and immune to it. The way we have tried to treat Covid may end up being a mass failed experiment that ultimately ruins us.
A shocking thought just occurred to me: Gordon Brown might be right!
- “For G20 countries to hoard life-saving vaccines and deny them to the poorest countries, while allowing tens of millions of doses to go to waste, is a morally indefensible act of medical and social vandalism that should never be forgotten or forgiven.”
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
If a shop or premises makes it a condition of entry to wear a mask I will do it, because it’s the right thing to do as it is their business and they set the rules. It’s just common courtesy.
well if you think it is common courtesy to force people to wear masks I disagree with the definition . TBF is not shops that are enforcing the lastest covid theatre edict its the government being weak in the face of covid obsessives . Most shops are hinting they do not want the rules hence supermarkets saying they will not enforce the rule
What exactly are the rules in law now? For example, I visited my vintner yesterday wielding my mask, thinking it now compulsory, but when I opened the door to his shop nobody inside was wearing a mask - including the vintner himself. Thus, I declined to put my mask on as I didn’t want to give the impression that I disapproved of him or his other customers.
Is he supposed to enforce the rule himself? Conversely, if the rule is unenforced, is it really a rule? Is it actually the law?
You dont cross the channel in a flimsy boat having (probably ) paid all your life savings and more to some serious criminals unless you are desparate especially with your family . Now there will always be a dangerous stretch of water between France and England and (perhaps sadly ) always some need for immigration control . The only thing to change is the desparation of the people who do this and that is not easy but it could start by not dividing people up as we do in all societies , getting rid on restrictions to work (and hence contribute) and creating less not more borders (hence my reason to vote REMAIN )
Desperate to escape from France?
well its obvious they were
No it isn't.
One of the drowned women had been living and working in Germany for years. That's not desperation.
To say that everyone who gets on the dinghy is desperate is the same kind of fallacy as that which says everyone who takes drugs is desperate.
Sometimes people underestimate the risks, or disregard then, so act illogically.
Mr. Away, point of order, most of the burnings were post-medieval. The first occurred under Henry IV. In terms of civilised behaviour to outsiders and prisoners, the conduct of the 11th century was generally far better than later ones.
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
You are of course right which sort of makes it even more depressing that it was more recent !
I used to catch a bus in Havant and one of the regular drivers had dwarfism. I'll admit that I was a bit nervous the first time that he got into the driver's cab on the bus I was on but all was fine and he was such a cheerful man that I used to enjoy being on his bus. I was really upset to read during lockdown in the local paper that he had died of a heart attack at his home (although a tiny bit of me did feel thankful that it didn't happen while he was driving his bus).
F1: trying to work out if Ladbrokes are being slow with the classified market or deliberately not having it on a track with the walls of Monaco and speeds of Monza.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
Mr. Away, point of order, most of the burnings were post-medieval. The first occurred under Henry IV. In terms of civilised behaviour to outsiders and prisoners, the conduct of the 11th century was generally far better than later ones.
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
Wasn't it John who exiled the Jews? Basically because he owed too many of them money? It was of course Cromwell who allowed them to return, although given Shakespeare's description of Shylock it would appear that they'd been slipping back earlier.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
There's far too many grid penalties in F1 nowadays. Decide the race on the track not pettifogging rules.
If there wasn't a cap/budget on engines/gearboxes etc the team with the biggest budget would win pretty much every race/championship, they'd change their gearbox and engine every race to get a boost.
As opposed to now, where the two teams with the biggest budget win every race and championship?
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
There's far too many grid penalties in F1 nowadays. Decide the race on the track not pettifogging rules.
If there wasn't a cap/budget on engines/gearboxes etc the team with the biggest budget would win pretty much every race/championship, they'd change their gearbox and engine every race to get a boost.
As opposed to now, where the two teams with the biggest budget win every race and championship?
IIRC Ferrari have/had the biggest budget and 14 years without a title.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
It is a challenging problem for sure - if there was an obvious solution it would have been tried and we wouldn't be discussing it. Here are some thoughts though on what we could do - create more legal pathways for refugees to settle here; take our fair share of refugees instead of taking far fewer than other major European countries (let alone countries like Turkey or Jordan who actually are overwhelmed); prioritise refugees who for family or language reasons want to be here - because they will be easiest to assimilate. And stop pandering to those who would seek to rob people of their humanity, recognising that that is a very dark path indeed. FWIW I am not a huge fan of throwing the Nazis into every political discussion, but I will defend the right of others to do so when, as in this example, there is some justification. There is a reason why international law on refugees was put in place after WW2, after all.
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
Pre take off stops infectious cases getting into the UK where there is a risk they will breach quarantine rules (as well as transit risk).
Post travel covers the following (up to) 4 days to ensure fewer cases that were caught late
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Less than the tens of millions of deaths there would have been in the Indian civil war which would have resulted without partition if Jinnah's Muslim League's demand for the creation of Pakistan had not been met
I used to catch a bus in Havant and one of the regular drivers had dwarfism. I'll admit that I was a bit nervous the first time that he got into the driver's cab on the bus I was on but all was fine and he was such a cheerful man that I used to enjoy being on his bus. I was really upset to read during lockdown in the local paper that he had died of a heart attack at his home (although a tiny bit of me did feel thankful that it didn't happen while he was driving his bus).
On Topic I remember in 2016 when YC was literally begging L4%K to stay in the race as she didb't want to be seen as the most right wing candidate for Labour leader.
Liz wanted to withdraw and throw her lot in with Yvette. The latter pleaded with her to stay in as she perceived gaining a few right wing ultras would be outweighed by those she lost to the two others if she became the right wing candidate.
I dont rate Cooper and she is probably more right wing than Starmer but i would probably vote Lab if she was leader
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
F1: trying to work out if Ladbrokes are being slow with the classified market or deliberately not having it on a track with the walls of Monaco and speeds of Monza.
Ladbrokes has a points finish market. Isn't that the same thing? Have you cached an earlier page?
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Of course when it was princely states there was no India anyway, as you say even then there were separate princely states for Hindus and Muslims. So that is not at all an argument against partition into a Hindu majority and Muslim majority state on Indian independence
And yet Cooper is an MP. She is smart and lucky. Good qualities to have.
Hips may have failed, but at least she tried to make home owning easier and more affordable. That’s a good thing. It’s not the first time that a minister was defeated by a blob of vested interests.
It was an extra cost and bureaucracy for house owners.
Vendor due diligence has its merits but it can’t be relied on.
For example you buy a house the vendor says is fine and has a high level survey that says it is ok. You buy the house and 6 months later have to spend a fortune.
But if you had done the work yourself, and paid for a proper structural survey, then you could have had a price adjustment or walked away before taking on the liability.
At best HIPS have no value. At worst they transfer risk to the buyer.
There wasn’t a “blob” that fought against them. They just weren’t a good idea. The concept of speeding up house sales was a good one, but this was the wrong approach
HIPS had the hallmark of a policy quietly brewed up in the shadows by civil servants, deftly sprung onto a naive incoming minister in response the question "what can I do for you?"
How can she be too short if she's been doing the job for 34 years? Presumably she hasn't suddenly lost 3 inches of height or something.
Edit - apparently they've redesigned the driving position to accommodate new wing mirrors, without realising that somebody under about 5 foot 5 couldn't see the mirrors and drive the bus at the same time.
That's pretty impressively incompetent. Heck, even Nicky Morgan wasn't quite that stupid.
How do you reach the conclusion it’s incompetent?
It is a trade off, sure, but they made a decision and we don’t know whether height was a material factor (I guess not)
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
Have you been vaccinated and are willing to keep up with boosters? If so, I agree with you.
yes I am not anti vaccine and this is the way to deal with this virus . it is not to shut down society forever or do covid theatre for no reason than to be seen to be doing something and seem to be in control of a virus that cannto be controlled . We have a weird state of mind these days that governments can solve everything and that society is all about "being safe". The effect on stpid restirctions and day to day obsession about covid is getting criminal in terms of consequences on education , general health and making a miserable society
On a purely personal level I've never been more miserable than these past two weeks when I've been suffering from COVID. I also find it slightly amusing that a lot of the most virulent anti maskers on here are the same people who justify every idiocy of Brexit because it was the will of the people. Well opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the population support the most careful approach to COVID on offer. Do you respect this or not?
No because my Mcdonalds example show people actually dont believe in masks .I am sceptical of opinion polls on policy issues because they can be manipulated or people just like being virtuous in them when in reality and (free) action they are not .
As for brexit I have no idea what you are talking about - I voted REMAIN
Went for an early drive along an A-road and back. About 80% of the people sticking to the speed limit. Ridiculous safety-theatre. Shout out to the 20% of heroes who are rightly standing up for their freedoms.
good luck in your mask wearing forever as covid is endemic like flu
Well, the point was subtler than you think. It was really a point about how lots of people on here seem enormously keen on commenting on whether or not people are following the rules on mask wearing, whereas you rarely see people talking in similar ways about other rules. I'm glad you jumped to masks, though, because I didn't mention them. I think you recognise the phenomenon too.
Genius!
Yes it’s pathetic the way people discuss, at length, controversial new rules that are a drastic change to all we’ve ever known, but don’t give the same energy or column inches to century old established parts of everyday living
This is a key point. If somebody had proposed, in 2018, that everybody had to wear a mask when visiting a shop or sat on a bus, most would have thought that outlandishly authoritarian. It remains a very significant imposition. It is absolutely worthy of debate, regardless of one’s view of it.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
The Conservative and Brexit Party vote was 51% in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford in 2019, by contrast the Conservative vote was only 49% in Esher and Walton in 2019 (with no BXP candidate) and the Conservative and Brexit Party vote was only 39% in Kensington in 2019.
Brexit made Cooper's seat and Labour Leave seats far more of a prospect for Boris' Tories and Conservative Remain seats far less of a prospect for the Tories.
So if the next general election is still mainly fought on Leaver v Remainer lines, with the former mainly voting for Boris' Tories and the latter mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs then the Conservatives would have a chance if they could squeeze the BXP vote. Much as they won the Hartlepool by election in May.
However, provided Starmer gets any swing at all from the Conservatives next time and if RefUK also picks up a few BXP voters then it should be a Labour hold
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Didn't we try conquest because the princes were getting a bit uppity on the 'trading' relationships? ie. it was done to preserve 'trade', rather than as an alternative?
Tackling drug abuse will be at the heart of a law and order initiative to be announced this week. It will include:
HARSH punishments to deter lifestyle drug use, including removal of passports and driving licences, night-time curfews and football-style travel bans; TOUGHER sentences for dealers, action to break up County Lines gangs who exploit children and a crackdown on drugs in prisons; RECORD spending on treatment and recovery services to get people out of addictions which drive offending; EXTRA cash for 50 local authorities with the worst drug problems, including Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hull and coastal towns in the North East and Yorkshire. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16941848/boris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war/
This is a quite startling claim that the migrants who drowned in the English Channel were left to do so by HM Coastguard who knew they were there and in trouble for many hours.
Has anyone seen this reported elsewhere?
It would merit criminal charges if true I would have thought.
Big if true, but it patently isn't. We know the incident happened near Calais, no way can that have been faked, so what are the Coastguard supposed to have been told? I can see on google maps that my cousin's boat in France has stopped moving?
Presumably they told the French coastguard...
Link says HM Coastguard because they were in UK waters
You said we know it happened near Calais. So why didn't the French respond?
They did, once a fishing vessel had found the bodies and broadcast a mayday. There was a large UK/France joint op. I was just commenting on the improbability of this tweet or instagram or whatever it is.
That claim is from Lowkey, a rapper with strange fringe politics.
Recently appeared in support of David Miller, a prof who was sacked from Bristol Uni for incorporating antisemitic views in a lecture, and so not meeting required standards. Tied up with PSC etc.
So I'd want a second source, though I would not necessarily discount it.
Mr. Away, point of order, most of the burnings were post-medieval. The first occurred under Henry IV. In terms of civilised behaviour to outsiders and prisoners, the conduct of the 11th century was generally far better than later ones.
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
Wasn't it John who exiled the Jews? Basically because he owed too many of them money? It was of course Cromwell who allowed them to return, although given Shakespeare's description of Shylock it would appear that they'd been slipping back earlier.
Shylock lived in Venice!
It was Cromwell who permitted the Jews back. Royalists do have a strong tendency to make out the Commonwealth far more intolerant than it was. Indeed non-conformist Protestants were much more persecuted under the Restoration.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
There's far too many grid penalties in F1 nowadays. Decide the race on the track not pettifogging rules.
If there wasn't a cap/budget on engines/gearboxes etc the team with the biggest budget would win pretty much every race/championship, they'd change their gearbox and engine every race to get a boost.
As opposed to now, where the two teams with the biggest budget win every race and championship?
IIRC Ferrari have/had the biggest budget and 14 years without a title.
Fair point, I should have said the top 3 as there's a massive gap between them and the rest.
But surely the overall budget cap should obviate the need for restrictions on numbers of individual components?
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Of course when it was princely states there was no India anyway, as you say even then there were separate princely states for Hindus and Muslims. So that is not at all an argument against partition into a Hindu majority and Muslim majority state on Indian independence
Many of the Hindu led states has significant non-Hindu populations, and the same applied to those where a Muslim was the Ruler.
However, it's interesting, and perhaps uncharacteristic, to read your defence of a Labour policy, about which the Conservative party wasn't happy.
And now, I'm sorry, but I have some Christmas gifts to prepare so I'm off.
I'll be back tomorrow, DV and all that. But I've other things to do now. Have fun one and all, and Mr D, I hope you get the F1 result you've gambled on.
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
Have you been vaccinated and are willing to keep up with boosters? If so, I agree with you.
yes I am not anti vaccine and this is the way to deal with this virus . it is not to shut down society forever or do covid theatre for no reason than to be seen to be doing something and seem to be in control of a virus that cannto be controlled . We have a weird state of mind these days that governments can solve everything and that society is all about "being safe". The effect on stpid restirctions and day to day obsession about covid is getting criminal in terms of consequences on education , general health and making a miserable society
On a purely personal level I've never been more miserable than these past two weeks when I've been suffering from COVID. I also find it slightly amusing that a lot of the most virulent anti maskers on here are the same people who justify every idiocy of Brexit because it was the will of the people. Well opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the population support the most careful approach to COVID on offer. Do you respect this or not?
No because my Mcdonalds example show people actually dont believe in masks .I am sceptical of opinion polls on policy issues because they can be manipulated or people just like being virtuous in them when in reality and (free) action they are not .
As for brexit I have no idea what you are talking about - I voted REMAIN
Went for an early drive along an A-road and back. About 80% of the people sticking to the speed limit. Ridiculous safety-theatre. Shout out to the 20% of heroes who are rightly standing up for their freedoms.
good luck in your mask wearing forever as covid is endemic like flu
Well, the point was subtler than you think. It was really a point about how lots of people on here seem enormously keen on commenting on whether or not people are following the rules on mask wearing, whereas you rarely see people talking in similar ways about other rules. I'm glad you jumped to masks, though, because I didn't mention them. I think you recognise the phenomenon too.
Genius!
Yes it’s pathetic the way people discuss, at length, controversial new rules that are a drastic change to all we’ve ever known, but don’t give the same energy or column inches to century old established parts of everyday living
This is a key point. If somebody had proposed, in 2018, that everybody had to wear a mask when visiting a shop or sat on a bus, most would have thought that outlandishly authoritarian. It remains a very significant imposition. It is absolutely worthy of debate, regardless of one’s view of it.
I think the whole thing is overblown, by both sides. It’s really not much of an imposition, but I’d being culture-warred the hell out of by its proponents because some people love nothing more than a bit of sanctimonious condemnation of their fellow citizens.
The thing is masks don’t really suit culture war, at least not in Britain. Much as a few anti-mask Spartans on the right and blue heart twitterers on the left consider this one of the defining battles of good vs evil of the 21st century, completely aligned with the parallel Brexit and woke wars, the general population appear not to get the memo.
Around here the small number of people not wearing masks in shops and trains are disproportionately a. young, b. working class c. black and mixed race. Hardly some vanguard of the Brexiteer hordes.
Mr. Away, point of order, most of the burnings were post-medieval. The first occurred under Henry IV. In terms of civilised behaviour to outsiders and prisoners, the conduct of the 11th century was generally far better than later ones.
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
Wasn't it John who exiled the Jews? Basically because he owed too many of them money? It was of course Cromwell who allowed them to return, although given Shakespeare's description of Shylock it would appear that they'd been slipping back earlier.
Shylock lived in Venice!
It was Cromwell who permitted the Jews back. Royalists do have a strong tendency to make out the Commonwealth far more intolerant than it was. Indeed non-conformist Protestants were much more persecuted under the Restoration.
There wasn't much tolerance for Roman Catholics under Cromwell however, Charles however turned a blind eye largely and his brother James openly promoted Catholicism again when he took the throne.
Indeed under Cromwell the main church in England was effectively evangelical, bible based Presbyterian with Cromwell banning bishops and and no monarch as supreme governor and of course restriction of celebration of Christmas and Holy Days. It took the restoration of Charles IInd to restore the Church of England as the official church with the revised 1662 prayer book and Bible reading just part of services rather than preaching from the Bible being the dominant part of the service
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
According to Wiki 200k to 2 million killed, 10-20 million displaced.
Pakistan in Urdu with a bit of Persian means "Land of the Pure" from Urdu پاک (pak, “pure, holy, immaculate, chaste, undefiled”) and Persian ـستان (-stân, “-stan”)
Thing I didn't know before today -
It was originally coined by Pakistani nationalist Choudhary Rahmat Ali, who published it while studying Law at Cambridge in the pamphlet Now or Never issued on January 28, 1933, as an acronym of the names of the "Muslim homelands" of western India—Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan. The i was later added to the name to ease pronunciation.
Tackling drug abuse will be at the heart of a law and order initiative to be announced this week. It will include:
HARSH punishments to deter lifestyle drug use, including removal of passports and driving licences, night-time curfews and football-style travel bans; TOUGHER sentences for dealers, action to break up County Lines gangs who exploit children and a crackdown on drugs in prisons; RECORD spending on treatment and recovery services to get people out of addictions which drive offending; EXTRA cash for 50 local authorities with the worst drug problems, including Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hull and coastal towns in the North East and Yorkshire. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16941848/boris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war/
An eye-catching initiative.
going to put Gove's previous in the spotlight. Has he done something to offend Carrie?
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Didn't we try conquest because the princes were getting a bit uppity on the 'trading' relationships? ie. it was done to preserve 'trade', rather than as an alternative?
Originally the princely states were supposedly feudatories of the Great Mughal. (Some were in practice more independent than others). The East India Company started off by setting up trading stations ("factories") but moved into land holding by effectively taking over princely states, initially when succession run out but then they got into a combination of bribery and force to get them out. Technically they still held it as a feudatory of the Mughal. And also in lieu of the British Crown, but in practice they did their own thing. After the Indian Revolt, the Mughal was deposed, Victoria succeeded as Empress, and the British state took over what the EIC had started. I think at that point we generally stopped deposing prince's, although it still happened gradually due to succession failure, as they now stood as feudatories of the Queen Empress.
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
Have you been vaccinated and are willing to keep up with boosters? If so, I agree with you.
yes I am not anti vaccine and this is the way to deal with this virus . it is not to shut down society forever or do covid theatre for no reason than to be seen to be doing something and seem to be in control of a virus that cannto be controlled . We have a weird state of mind these days that governments can solve everything and that society is all about "being safe". The effect on stpid restirctions and day to day obsession about covid is getting criminal in terms of consequences on education , general health and making a miserable society
On a purely personal level I've never been more miserable than these past two weeks when I've been suffering from COVID. I also find it slightly amusing that a lot of the most virulent anti maskers on here are the same people who justify every idiocy of Brexit because it was the will of the people. Well opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the population support the most careful approach to COVID on offer. Do you respect this or not?
No because my Mcdonalds example show people actually dont believe in masks .I am sceptical of opinion polls on policy issues because they can be manipulated or people just like being virtuous in them when in reality and (free) action they are not .
As for brexit I have no idea what you are talking about - I voted REMAIN
I wasn't referring to you specifically. However I don't entirely buy your McDonald's example. For a start you can't eat while wearing a mask so it's really people making a choice between not eating in McDonald's at all or putting up with the risk.
Also I take your point about opinion polling but I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that COVID restrictions have been anything but popular. Protests against them have been tiny, no candidate has yet gained any electoral success in opposing them and so on.
the Macdonals was so crowded that the wait time for food was about 15 mins but the crowd standing waiting had no masks - peopel really dont intrinsically believe in them but they obey generally the laws , hence the same peopel masking up in the next door Waterstones etc
I wouldn't have thought there is a huge overlap between Waterstones and McDonalds customers!
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
Have you been vaccinated and are willing to keep up with boosters? If so, I agree with you.
yes I am not anti vaccine and this is the way to deal with this virus . it is not to shut down society forever or do covid theatre for no reason than to be seen to be doing something and seem to be in control of a virus that cannto be controlled . We have a weird state of mind these days that governments can solve everything and that society is all about "being safe". The effect on stpid restirctions and day to day obsession about covid is getting criminal in terms of consequences on education , general health and making a miserable society
…. I also find it slightly amusing that a lot of the most virulent anti maskers on here are the same people who justify every idiocy of Brexit because it was the will of the people. Well opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the population support the most careful approach to COVID on offer. Do you respect this or not?
Brexit has proved the will of the people is entirely irrational, so we can ignore it ? Or something….
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
India* had an estimated 25 % of world GDP at the time. A similar economic power to today's USA.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
The Conservative and Brexit Party vote was 51% in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford in 2019, by contrast the Conservative vote was only 49% in Esher and Walton in 2019 (with no BXP candidate) and the Conservative and Brexit Party vote was only 39% in Kensington in 2019.
Brexit made Cooper's seat and Labour Leave seats far more of a prospect for Boris' Tories and Conservative Remain seats far less of a prospect for the Tories.
So if the next general election is still mainly fought on Leaver v Remainer lines, with the former mainly voting for Boris' Tories and the latter mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs then the Conservatives would have a chance if they could squeeze the BXP vote. Much as they won the Hartlepool by election in May.
However, provided Starmer gets any swing at all from the Conservatives next time and if RefUK also picks up a few BXP voters then it should be a Labour hold
I think if there's another 2019 type result then this seat would be likely to fall to the Tories along with neighbouring Hemsworth and possibly a few others.
Although if there's at least a small swing in Labour's favour nationally and Labour is gaining seats overall then she'll probably be OK. Local election results here were also better than the rest of Wakefield even though the Lib dems won Knottingley and the tories win Pontefract S.
I do agree with this thread BTW. Yvette Cooper is good in select committees but I do not see her appeal beyond that.
Good morning everyone. 'Warmer' this morning, Though from the sound on the roof, it's raining again.
Quite what is the point of the new travel arrangements? I can, just about, see the point of my Thailand relatives not being allowed to board the plane without a negative test; they are after all going to be in the plane for around twelve hours, and neither I nor they have any issue with them having to have a PCR on arrival, but why does someone on a flight from, say Paris or the Canaries have to do two tests within a very few hours of each other. And what will be the arrangements at, again as example, for a lorry driver bringing over a load from Europe via Dover. Has the Sec of State for Health got relations running testing kit supply companies?
What is the point of masks in supermarkets? Which are hardly a notable vector of transmission. Or indeed in school classrooms (which undoubtedly are)? A report on the subject in Scotland commissioned a year ago remains conspicuous by its absence.
Many of these actions are done for one thing only - to look as if our lords and masters are doing something.
The tragedy is they're so mind bendingly incompetent we'd be far better off if they did nothing.
Dont wear them - i have made up my mind i am not wearing a facemask at all anywhere and nobody has said anything . There will always be a variant , covid around so the logical thing is that we will have facemasks forever until they are mass resisted
Have you been vaccinated and are willing to keep up with boosters? If so, I agree with you.
yes I am not anti vaccine and this is the way to deal with this virus . it is not to shut down society forever or do covid theatre for no reason than to be seen to be doing something and seem to be in control of a virus that cannto be controlled . We have a weird state of mind these days that governments can solve everything and that society is all about "being safe". The effect on stpid restirctions and day to day obsession about covid is getting criminal in terms of consequences on education , general health and making a miserable society
…. I also find it slightly amusing that a lot of the most virulent anti maskers on here are the same people who justify every idiocy of Brexit because it was the will of the people. Well opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority of the population support the most careful approach to COVID on offer. Do you respect this or not?
Brexit has proved the will of the people is entirely irrational, so we can ignore it ? Or something….
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Of course when it was princely states there was no India anyway, as you say even then there were separate princely states for Hindus and Muslims. So that is not at all an argument against partition into a Hindu majority and Muslim majority state on Indian independence
Many of the Hindu led states has significant non-Hindu populations, and the same applied to those where a Muslim was the Ruler.
However, it's interesting, and perhaps uncharacteristic, to read your defence of a Labour policy, about which the Conservative party wasn't happy.
And now, I'm sorry, but I have some Christmas gifts to prepare so I'm off.
I'll be back tomorrow, DV and all that. But I've other things to do now. Have fun one and all, and Mr D, I hope you get the F1 result you've gambled on.
The Conservative Party under Churchill did not want to give India independence full stop, it wanted to keep a united India within the British Empire.
However given Attlee's Labour government was insistent on giving India independence then partition, which Mountbatten implemented as last Viceroy, was the only realistic way to achieve it without civil war if Muslims were denied Muslim majority Pakistan as an alternative to being governed by Hindu majority India.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
Thank goodness Tories and Unionists never indulge in that kind of behaviour (I couldn’t find the photoshop of Sturgeon in an SS uniform so beloved by your fruitier fellow travellers, I suspect twitter may have banned it). Motes and beams indeed.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
It wasn’t really “conquest” in the way people u set stand it. Trade came first, with advisers. Then there was a call to use Company troops to help princely allies in squabbles with neighbouring states.
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
I am sure there must be but can’t think of one off hand.
The Democrats won’t care about the precedent and the media will back them up. If Harris goes to SCOTUS (presumably for Breyer), it will be framed as an attempt to rebalance the Court etc.
One thing is whether this story is linked in with anyone having “inside info” on the SCOTUS judges. It’s assumed Harris would replace Breyer but Alito and Thomas are getting on a bit (although I haven’t seen any stories about their health). On the assumption though she’s a replacement for Breyer, it would need to happen in the next year given the risks of a Republican Senate win next November.
However, the biggest issue may be Harris. Her whole career has shown she will do a lot to get where she wants and a White President (especially one with so much historical baggage as Joe Biden) pushing out a Black Female VP would go down like a bucket of sick. The corporate base of the Dems would like it but the activists would go nuts.
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
I suspect it is just one plan of many being floated in desperation rather than a likely outcome.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
I am not so sure.
The collapse of the Brexit vote is a big bonus for the Tories. Brexit voters dovetail nicely into the JohnsonIan Conservative Party.
Neither am I sure an intellectual Liberal like Cooper is that well equipped to deal with a super-populist like Priti. Cooper will look weak and on the side of vile villainy against Priti's near-future demands to execute Wayne Couzens, Emma Tustin, Gary Glitter and their ilk.
Ed should consider buying Yvette some dancing shoes.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
Of course when it was princely states there was no India anyway, as you say even then there were separate princely states for Hindus and Muslims. So that is not at all an argument against partition into a Hindu majority and Muslim majority state on Indian independence
Many of the Hindu led states has significant non-Hindu populations, and the same applied to those where a Muslim was the Ruler.
However, it's interesting, and perhaps uncharacteristic, to read your defence of a Labour policy, about which the Conservative party wasn't happy.
And now, I'm sorry, but I have some Christmas gifts to prepare so I'm off.
I'll be back tomorrow, DV and all that. But I've other things to do now. Have fun one and all, and Mr D, I hope you get the F1 result you've gambled on.
The Conservative Party under Churchill did not want to give India independence full stop, it wanted to keep a united India within the British Empire.
However given Attlee's Labour government was insistent on giving India independence then partition, which Mountbatten implemented as last Viceroy, was the only realistic way to achieve it without civil war if Muslims were denied Muslim majority Pakistan as an alternative to being governed by Hindu majority India.
Partition wasn’t inevitable. In fact, Congress had started off as non-religious. There is a case for saying the British promoted the Muslim League to weaken Gandhi’s struggle.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
It's not all Conservatives though. David Davis had a very sensible and humane piece on this in the Guardian. There is a very nasty strain of opinion developing on refugees, egged on by this government, which is reminiscent of other historical examples of politicians who exploited these kind of fears and treated other people as less than human. Nothing wrong with saying that, imho.
I don't want to bore on this but I really think that there is. We face a challenging problem with illegal immigration at the moment. There are no easy answers and as the population of Africa explodes over the next 30 years or so the problem is going to get much, much worse.
We have a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. Bluntly, there are far too many hundreds of millions living in failed states to allow us to give anything other than a token percentage of them asylum. There are hundreds of millions more who want to come here for a better life for themselves and their children. Who can blame them? Much of the world remains a desperate place.
So what is the humane response to this? The answer is really not obvious and we certainly don't get any closer to an answer by going Godwin on a significant percentage of the people who are concerned about the implications. You might have thought that lesson would have been learned once and for all by Brexit but apparently not.
I think we're all on the same side on this; obviously I agree with Mr L that 'everyone can't come here' and that 'we' ought to be doing everything we can to make lives better for those in the failed states. However, at the moment we don't seem to be doing that, Yemen being perhaps the most extreme example, and when some brave or desperate souls do manage to make the trip there are some here who almost seem to glory in making life as unpleasant as possible;le for them here.
That is so difficult though. Even putting aside the patronising, racist paternalism of a new colonialism the shining examples of "nation building" we have left behind in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan do raise some question marks about our competence and capability of doing any better.
As I said, Mr L, we agree on at least as much as we disagree. The creation of Pakistan doesn't stand out as a shining example of 'how to do it' either.
Better than the civil war between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims that would have occurred had Pakistan not been created as a state for Indian Muslims
.How many deaths during partition?
Before the British, and French, decided to 'civilise' what we now call the Indian sub-continent it was a mass if princely states, some large, some small, some prosperous, some indigent, some Hindu, some Muslim, rather similar to Europe before the cataclysm brought about by the French Revolution. If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
It wasn’t really “conquest” in the way people u set stand it. Trade came first, with advisers. Then there was a call to use Company troops to help princely allies in squabbles with neighbouring states.
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
Well Harding nominated former President Taft.
Thanks. Google tells me there were 8 years between leaving the presidency and becoming Supreme Court justice so something of a firebreak at least.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
How is an honest resignation from an organisation the same as “stabbing them in the back”? Surely the Lib Dems don’t want members in their ranks who are not voting for their candidates? If he hadn’t resigned he would surely have been disciplined, perhaps expelled?
On topic, does anyone know what boundary changes do to YC's constituency?
Someone downthread says the left get wound up by her - not especially, I'd say, but she represents continuity with the Blair/Brown era, which is a good thing if one wants experience and familiar names or a bad thing if one wants a decisive break with the past. Most left-wingers who I know would settle for a couple of identifiably progressive policies and let Starmer appoint whoever he reckons will appeal.
I do think some here are being silly in thinking HIPS is going to blight her appeal - I dount if more than 10% of the electorate remember what they were, and half of those will reckon they were a reasonable minor idea that didn't work out. There are worse stumbles in politics, not least in the history of the current Cabinet.
10%? LOL. More like 1%.
HIPS were a classic example of government thinking they can always make things better by more regulation though
And done without discussion with the wider industry affected by the change.
It wouldn’t have taken much asking around to see that a bank advancing a loan secured on property, would want a licenced and chartered surveyor, with professional indemnity insurance, to formally sign off on the state of the property.
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
How about the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh etc?
Your extreme partisanship blinds you.
The notion that SCOTUS is politically independent hasn't been true for decades, if ever.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
Comedy gold. Having embarrassed yourself claiming things about an exit wave that was entirely your invention, you're still going on about traitors and backstabbers.
When do you stab the UK in the back and move to Switzerland? I don't deny the mote in my eye...
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
I am sure there must be but can’t think of one off hand.
The Democrats won’t care about the precedent and the media will back them up. If Harris goes to SCOTUS (presumably for Breyer), it will be framed as an attempt to rebalance the Court etc.
One thing is whether this story is linked in with anyone having “inside info” on the SCOTUS judges. It’s assumed Harris would replace Breyer but Alito and Thomas are getting on a bit (although I haven’t seen any stories about their health). On the assumption though she’s a replacement for Breyer, it would need to happen in the next year given the risks of a Republican Senate win next November.
However, the biggest issue may be Harris. Her whole career has shown she will do a lot to get where she wants and a White President (especially one with so much historical baggage as Joe Biden) pushing out a Black Female VP would go down like a bucket of sick. The corporate base of the Dems would like it but the activists would go nuts.
There isn't much evidence Harris appeals to the black vote though, even before she pulled out ahead of the 2020 primaries Biden got more of the Black vote than her in polls, helped by having been Obama's VP.
If Biden wants to keep suburban moderates on board then Buttigieg would be a better bet for his running mate in 2024 than Harris
However, the biggest issue may be Harris. Her whole career has shown she will do a lot to get where she wants and a White President (especially one with so much historical baggage as Joe Biden) pushing out a Black Female VP would go down like a bucket of sick. The corporate base of the Dems would like it but the activists would go nuts.
Pick another black female VP. If Biden was retiring I'm sure he'd be more comfortable passing the 2024 race on to Val Demmings or Stacey Abrams.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
I am not so sure.
The collapse of the Brexit vote is a big bonus for the Tories. Brexit voters dovetail nicely into the JohnsonIan Conservative Party.
Neither am I sure an intellectual Liberal like Cooper is that well equipped to deal with a super-populist like Priti. Cooper will look weak and on the side of vile villainy against Priti's near-future demands to execute Wayne Couzens, Emma Tustin, Gary Glitter and their ilk.
Ed should consider buying Yvette some dancing shoes.
I’m with you on both those points. I can’t see Brexit voters returning to Labour, they will switch to the Tories (and it’s not just Brexit - it’s the wider cultural issues). It’s also worth noting this will be. a seat where there will a drag effect from the “Labour till I die” voters dying off.
I said on here a few days back that SKS’s decision to put Cooper as SHS was an absolute stinker when it came to attracting back Red Wall voters - Cooper is pro-immigration and, in such a high profile role, will be in the public eye talking about the need to protect migrants etc.
However, there might be another angle to SKS’ move which is he is scared of a threat to Labour on the left flank, particularly from the Greens. In that case, his move does make some sense - it reminds these voters that Labour still cares about social justice issues etc. But what it means is that Labour is effectively giving up on an electoral winning strategy and now is retreating to its base.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
How is an honest resignation from an organisation the same as “stabbing them in the back”? Surely the Lib Dems don’t want members in their ranks who are not voting for their candidates? If he hadn’t resigned he would surely have been disciplined, perhaps expelled?
Honesty is the best policy.
It depends on how long term the voting change is I think, and whether it’s on tactical or ideological grounds.
I am a member of the Lib Dems but have voted for other parties from time to time in local and mayoral elections, and if I were in a Labour-Tory marginal I wouldn’t hesitate to lend my vote to Labour at a GE, but would still happily support and pay my membership to the Lib Dems.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
How is an honest resignation from an organisation the same as “stabbing them in the back”? Surely the Lib Dems don’t want members in their ranks who are not voting for their candidates? If he hadn’t resigned he would surely have been disciplined, perhaps expelled?
Honesty is the best policy.
I remain broadly supportive of the party, see them as the best fit for my views and genuinely hope they smash the Tories in southern England.
But to remove Hey Duggie from office I need to vote for the party best positioned to do so, and that is the SNP. I am very clear that I will do so. Morally that doesn't feel right - you can't be a member of a party and not vote for them. Whats more the party constitution rules on membership is clear:
3.8 Membership may be revoked on one or more of the following grounds: D. membership of or support for another political party in Great Britain.
OK so they would have to catch me voting SNP and its a secret ballot. But its pretty straight forward - my decision to vote for another party is incompatible with membership. So I have resigned. I will vote for them in May's locals, but can't do in the GE.
Having resolved that I have to vote SNP to remove the lickspittle Duguid, I have resigned my membership of the LibDems. I can't in good conscience remain as a member having decided to vote against whomever their candidate is.
Stabbed the Lib Dems in the back too now mate. Maybe the issue isn't with them?
How is an honest resignation from an organisation the same as “stabbing them in the back”? Surely the Lib Dems don’t want members in their ranks who are not voting for their candidates? If he hadn’t resigned he would surely have been disciplined, perhaps expelled?
Honesty is the best policy.
It depends on how long term the voting change is I think, and whether it’s on tactical or ideological grounds.
I am a member of the Lib Dems but have voted for other parties from time to time in local and mayoral elections, and if I were in a Labour-Tory marginal I wouldn’t hesitate to lend my vote to Labour at a GE, but would still happily support and pay my membership to the Lib Dems.
I appreciate that perspective, and I had a good friend in Labour who voted TIG (stop laughing). It isn't something I can do - you are a member to support and advance the goals of the party. Picking up votes in an election you can't win this time is still valuable - that's how seats move from being solid one party to solid another party over time.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
I am not so sure.
The collapse of the Brexit vote is a big bonus for the Tories. Brexit voters dovetail nicely into the JohnsonIan Conservative Party.
Neither am I sure an intellectual Liberal like Cooper is that well equipped to deal with a super-populist like Priti. Cooper will look weak and on the side of vile villainy against Priti's near-future demands to execute Wayne Couzens, Emma Tustin, Gary Glitter and their ilk.
Ed should consider buying Yvette some dancing shoes.
I’m with you on both those points. I can’t see Brexit voters returning to Labour, they will switch to the Tories (and it’s not just Brexit - it’s the wider cultural issues). It’s also worth noting this will be. a seat where there will a drag effect from the “Labour till I die” voters dying off.
I said on here a few days back that SKS’s decision to put Cooper as SHS was an absolute stinker when it came to attracting back Red Wall voters - Cooper is pro-immigration and, in such a high profile role, will be in the public eye talking about the need to protect migrants etc.
However, there might be another angle to SKS’ move which is he is scared of a threat to Labour on the left flank, particularly from the Greens. In that case, his move does make some sense - it reminds these voters that Labour still cares about social justice issues etc. But what it means is that Labour is effectively giving up on an electoral winning strategy and now is retreating to its base.
Starmer has no chance of winning back most of the RedWall anyway, only Burnham probably has a chance of that and even getting Labour to most seats, let alone a majority.
Starmer has instead likely concluded his best chance of becoming PM is winning most of the Tory Remain marginals in London and the suburbs and a handful of the most marginal RedWall seats, helped by LD tactical votes there now Corbyn has gone. Then hope the LDs pick up Tory Remain marginals in the South and so he can become PM with LD and SNP support even if the Conservatives still win most seats. Hence the appointment of Cooper and Reeves and Lammy to replace Nandy as Labour's top team is dominated by Remainers and People's Vote supporters so he can double down on uniting Remainers behind Labour and the LDs at the next general election having also largely extinguished Corbynites from the top ranks of Labour even though Leavers will largely stick with Boris
Telegraph doesn't think it looks too good for Kamala:
"some figures in Washington are reportedly considering the “nuclear option” of moving [Kamala Harris] to the Supreme Court and putting a more well-liked vice president in her place in time for the next presidential election. Staff are now leaving her office in their droves because they don’t want to be tarnished as a ‘Harris person’ ahead of 2024."
Is there a precedent for that? (Genuine question). I can’t think of a better way to undermine the perceived political independence of SCOTUS than by putting a senior politician on the bench
How about the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh etc?
Your extreme partisanship blinds you.
The notion that SCOTUS is politically independent hasn't been true for decades, if ever.
Extreme partisanship?
I am biased towards preserving existing structures which more or less work and have been proven through time. Coupled with necessary, consensus based, reform when appropriate*
Both of the Justices that you suggest had a specific legal perspective that was shared by many in the majority party. But AFAIK they weren’t party political.
To appoint a sitting VP to the Supreme Court would create a precedent that would be ruthlessly exploited in future. It would completely undermine any chance of SCOTUS being seen as not party political.
But I know you are happy to expand the benches for political advantage so there isn’t much point in debating as you’ve already shown you don’t value the independence of the court. That’s one of those things, like Brexit, where we won’t agree because we value different things. I’m in favour of fairness, integrity and the courts acting as a brake on the executive. I don’t know what you want.
* @HYUFD that’s the definition of a “true” conservative
A referendum on masks would not follow the assumed patterns of a referendum on Brexit. In opinion polls on NPIs the main determinant is age. The younger the group, the less likely to support. But there is a secondary tendency for Labour supporters to be marginally more in favour of them than Tories.
A referendum on masks would not follow the assumed patterns of a referendum on Brexit. In opinion polls on NPIs the main determinant is age. The younger the group, the less likely to support. But there is a secondary tendency for Labour supporters to be marginally more in favour of them than Tories.
At the risk of sounding like a High Court Judge...what is an NPI? Clearly summat mask related but I can't guess the acronym. I am familiar with a Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
On topic this seat is safe for Labour. The blue surge topped out in the red wall in 2019, cannot see how they hope to win them in 2024 after what they've done.
I am not so sure.
The collapse of the Brexit vote is a big bonus for the Tories. Brexit voters dovetail nicely into the JohnsonIan Conservative Party.
Neither am I sure an intellectual Liberal like Cooper is that well equipped to deal with a super-populist like Priti. Cooper will look weak and on the side of vile villainy against Priti's near-future demands to execute Wayne Couzens, Emma Tustin, Gary Glitter and their ilk.
Ed should consider buying Yvette some dancing shoes.
I’m with you on both those points. I can’t see Brexit voters returning to Labour, they will switch to the Tories (and it’s not just Brexit - it’s the wider cultural issues). It’s also worth noting this will be. a seat where there will a drag effect from the “Labour till I die” voters dying off.
I said on here a few days back that SKS’s decision to put Cooper as SHS was an absolute stinker when it came to attracting back Red Wall voters - Cooper is pro-immigration and, in such a high profile role, will be in the public eye talking about the need to protect migrants etc.
However, there might be another angle to SKS’ move which is he is scared of a threat to Labour on the left flank, particularly from the Greens. In that case, his move does make some sense - it reminds these voters that Labour still cares about social justice issues etc. But what it means is that Labour is effectively giving up on an electoral winning strategy and now is retreating to its base.
I quite like her, moreso than her dreadful Husband.
Labour has on its side a soon to be struggling economy and some bumps in the Covid road. JohnsonIan Conservatives can more than offset this by some mind-numbingly illiberal policies. Priti as HS was a stroke of populist genius by Johnson. Hanging, flogging and strafing economic migrants in Zodiacs will be meat and drink to the RedWall. Cooper has no answer to this.
I would rather we didn't go for full-on Trumpland, but if that is what is needed to secure the Conservatives in Government, that is what we will get.
A referendum on masks would not follow the assumed patterns of a referendum on Brexit. In opinion polls on NPIs the main determinant is age. The younger the group, the less likely to support. But there is a secondary tendency for Labour supporters to be marginally more in favour of them than Tories.
At the risk of sounding like a High Court Judge...what is an NPI? Clearly summat mask related but I can't guess the acronym. I am familiar with a Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
Comments
https://theweek.com/pete-buttigieg/1007477/pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-favored-member-of-bidens-cabinet-poll-finds
You'd be right in thinking that on the left we have a higher level of acceptance (I think my constituency could integrate say 50-100 legal migrants a year without too much difficulty), but nobody actually proposes completely unrestricted immigration - and that's a separate point anyway from wanting to give a decent alternative to the Channel madness.
That said, some of the Americans posting on TA being held in Italian or Spanish quarantine hotels weren't happy about it.
Respected Dutch journalist Erik Van Haren says Max Verstappen’s gearbox is fine and he won’t need a change and therefore avoids a grid penalty. Red Bull are not commenting at this stage
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/1467427955240493057
However, a quick glance at Wikipedia, suggests that the initial 'blame' should be placed at actions during the Curzon Viceroyalty. After all, before we British really got involved, in the 18th & 19th centuries, Hindus and Muslims had managed to coexist at least as well as, and often better than, Catholics and Protestants.
It would repay Sir Keir Starmer and his recently refreshed shadow cabinet to study what these examples of rare Labour winners [Wilson & Blair] tell us about what it takes to be a successful opposition. One clue is in the job title. You have to oppose effectively...exploiting those flaws in support of a pitiless account of why the incumbents are not fit to remain in government.
It is never enough to say things once when you are leader of the opposition. Sir Keir needs to be as unrelenting as his two successful predecessors were. During the 20 months that Sir Keir has been Labour leader, the performance of the shadow cabinet has been good in parts and invisible in others. The comprehensive reshuffle he executed last week was long overdue.
The consensus among both the Labour and Conservative MPs I have spoken to is that Sir Keir is now equipped with a much sharper top team...expected to bring more heft and bite to Labour as an attack machine, but that is only half the challenge. The other half is to turn Labour into a party that looks ready to govern. Voters can come to the conclusion that this government is deeply sleazy and highly incompetent and they will still re-elect the Tories if they are not convinced that Labour is making a superior offer.
If you haven’t got the ideas and you can’t express them with a crispness and clarity that will cut through to voters, then you have no business being in modern politics.
The most charitable thing to say about Sir Keir’s party is that framing and communicating a positive and persuasive account of what a Labour Britain would look like is still a work in progress.
I'm surprised they've not taken the penalty, it would put him behind his team mate and the two Alpha Tauris who would let him pass easily, so effectively a two place penalty.
There's far too many grid penalties in F1 nowadays. Decide the race on the track not pettifogging rules.
You could not ignore Jinnah's direct action campaign, the attacks on Hindus by Muslims in summer 1946 and the reprisal attacks by Hindus on Muslims and the driving out of Hindus by Muslims in Rawalpindi in 1947 without leaving a legacy of civil war on Indian independence
Vendor due diligence has its merits but it can’t be relied on.
For example you buy a house the vendor says is fine and has a high level survey that says it is ok. You buy the house and 6 months later have to spend a fortune.
But if you had done the work yourself, and paid for a proper structural survey, then you could have had a price adjustment or walked away before taking on the liability.
At best HIPS have no value. At worst they transfer risk to the buyer.
There wasn’t a “blob” that fought against them. They just weren’t a good idea. The concept of speeding up house sales was a good one, but this was the wrong approach
William the Conqueror brought over Jews, while John persecuted and Edward I exiled them. Robert Curthose was imprisoned for life by his brother and rival Henry I, but John slew his nephew and rival.
Is he supposed to enforce the rule himself? Conversely, if the rule is unenforced, is it really a rule? Is it actually the law?
One of the drowned women had been living and working in Germany for years. That's not desperation.
To say that everyone who gets on the dinghy is desperate is the same kind of fallacy as that which says everyone who takes drugs is desperate.
Sometimes people underestimate the risks, or disregard then, so act illogically.
It was of course Cromwell who allowed them to return, although given Shakespeare's description of Shylock it would appear that they'd been slipping back earlier.
Here are some thoughts though on what we could do - create more legal pathways for refugees to settle here; take our fair share of refugees instead of taking far fewer than other major European countries (let alone countries like Turkey or Jordan who actually are overwhelmed); prioritise refugees who for family or language reasons want to be here - because they will be easiest to assimilate. And stop pandering to those who would seek to rob people of their humanity, recognising that that is a very dark path indeed.
FWIW I am not a huge fan of throwing the Nazis into every political discussion, but I will defend the right of others to do so when, as in this example, there is some justification. There is a reason why international law on refugees was put in place after WW2, after all.
Post travel covers the following (up to) 4 days to ensure fewer cases that were caught late
(Sorry).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England#Finances,_parliament_and_the_expulsion_of_Jews
Liz wanted to withdraw and throw her lot in with Yvette. The latter pleaded with her to stay in as she perceived gaining a few right wing ultras would be outweighed by those she lost to the two others if she became the right wing candidate.
I dont rate Cooper and she is probably more right wing than Starmer but i would probably vote Lab if she was leader
If we'd stuck to trading relationships, rather than trying conquest, everyone might have been a lot better off!
I suspect the Ferraris may end up failing to finish but can't bet on it yet.
It is a trade off, sure, but they made a decision and we don’t know whether height was a material factor (I guess not)
Brexit made Cooper's seat and Labour Leave seats far more of a prospect for Boris' Tories and Conservative Remain seats far less of a prospect for the Tories.
So if the next general election is still mainly fought on Leaver v Remainer lines, with the former mainly voting for Boris' Tories and the latter mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs then the Conservatives would have a chance if they could squeeze the BXP vote. Much as they won the Hartlepool by election in May.
However, provided Starmer gets any swing at all from the Conservatives next time and if RefUK also picks up a few BXP voters then it should be a Labour hold
HARSH punishments to deter lifestyle drug use, including removal of passports and driving licences, night-time curfews and football-style travel bans;
TOUGHER sentences for dealers, action to break up County Lines gangs who exploit children and a crackdown on drugs in prisons;
RECORD spending on treatment and recovery services to get people out of addictions which drive offending;
EXTRA cash for 50 local authorities with the worst drug problems, including Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hull and coastal towns in the North East and Yorkshire.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16941848/boris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war/
Recently appeared in support of David Miller, a prof who was sacked from Bristol Uni for incorporating antisemitic views in a lecture, and so not meeting required standards.
Tied up with PSC etc.
So I'd want a second source, though I would not necessarily discount it.
It was Cromwell who permitted the Jews back. Royalists do have a strong tendency to make out the Commonwealth far more intolerant than it was. Indeed non-conformist Protestants were much more persecuted under the Restoration.
But surely the overall budget cap should obviate the need for restrictions on numbers of individual components?
However, it's interesting, and perhaps uncharacteristic, to read your defence of a Labour policy, about which the Conservative party wasn't happy.
And now, I'm sorry, but I have some Christmas gifts to prepare so I'm off.
I'll be back tomorrow, DV and all that. But I've other things to do now. Have fun one and all, and Mr D, I hope you get the F1 result you've gambled on.
The thing is masks don’t really suit culture war, at least not in Britain. Much as a few anti-mask Spartans on the right and blue heart twitterers on the left consider this one of the defining battles of good vs evil of the 21st century, completely aligned with the parallel Brexit and woke wars, the general population appear not to get the memo.
Around here the small number of people not wearing masks in shops and trains are disproportionately a. young, b. working class c. black and mixed race. Hardly some vanguard of the Brexiteer hordes.
Indeed under Cromwell the main church in England was effectively evangelical, bible based Presbyterian with Cromwell banning bishops and and no monarch as supreme governor and of course restriction of celebration of Christmas and Holy Days. It took the restoration of Charles IInd to restore the Church of England as the official church with the revised 1662 prayer book and Bible reading just part of services rather than preaching from the Bible being the dominant part of the service
And there has been ethnic cleansing since - eg 200k Hindus driven out of Kashmir in the 1990s, with enough killed to get the rest moving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Pakistan in Urdu with a bit of Persian means "Land of the Pure" from Urdu پاک (pak, “pure, holy, immaculate, chaste, undefiled”) and Persian ـستان (-stân, “-stan”)
Thing I didn't know before today -
It was originally coined by Pakistani nationalist Choudhary Rahmat Ali, who published it while studying Law at Cambridge in the pamphlet Now or Never issued on January 28, 1933, as an acronym of the names of the "Muslim homelands" of western India—Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan. The i was later added to the name to ease pronunciation.
going to put Gove's previous in the spotlight. Has he done something to offend Carrie?
Or something….
*Of course there was no India as such.
Although if there's at least a small swing in Labour's favour nationally and Labour is gaining seats overall then she'll probably be OK. Local election results here were also better than the rest of Wakefield even though the Lib dems won Knottingley and the tories win Pontefract S.
I do agree with this thread BTW. Yvette Cooper is good in select committees but I do not see her appeal beyond that.
On the trains, stag and hen groups.
In the shopping centre, groups of chavvy youths and those who had them.
However given Attlee's Labour government was insistent on giving India independence then partition, which Mountbatten implemented as last Viceroy, was the only realistic way to achieve it without civil war if Muslims were denied Muslim majority Pakistan as an alternative to being governed by Hindu majority India.
He made a similar calculation at the last corner of qualifying….
https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
It was the original slippery slope
https://twitter.com/robdunsmore/status/1467434061610512387?s=21
The Democrats won’t care about the precedent and the media will back them up. If Harris goes to SCOTUS (presumably for Breyer), it will be framed as an attempt to rebalance the Court etc.
One thing is whether this story is linked in with anyone having “inside info” on the SCOTUS judges. It’s assumed Harris would replace Breyer but Alito and Thomas are getting on a bit (although I haven’t seen any stories about their health). On the assumption though she’s a replacement for Breyer, it would need to happen in the next year given the risks of a Republican Senate win next November.
However, the biggest issue may be Harris. Her whole career has shown she will do a lot to get where she wants and a White President (especially one with so much historical baggage as Joe Biden) pushing out a Black Female VP would go down like a bucket of sick. The corporate base of the Dems would like it but the activists would go nuts.
The collapse of the Brexit vote is a big bonus for the Tories. Brexit voters dovetail nicely into the JohnsonIan Conservative Party.
Neither am I sure an intellectual Liberal like Cooper is that well equipped to deal with a super-populist like Priti. Cooper will look weak and on the side of vile villainy against Priti's near-future demands to execute Wayne Couzens, Emma Tustin, Gary Glitter and their ilk.
Ed should consider buying Yvette some dancing shoes.
Honesty is the best policy.
It wouldn’t have taken much asking around to see that a bank advancing a loan secured on property, would want a licenced and chartered surveyor, with professional indemnity insurance, to formally sign off on the state of the property.
Your extreme partisanship blinds you.
The notion that SCOTUS is politically independent hasn't been true for decades, if ever.
When do you stab the UK in the back and move to Switzerland? I don't deny the mote in my eye...
If Biden wants to keep suburban moderates on board then Buttigieg would be a better bet for his running mate in 2024 than Harris
I said on here a few days back that SKS’s decision to put Cooper as SHS was an absolute stinker when it came to attracting back Red Wall voters - Cooper is pro-immigration and, in such a high profile role, will be in the public eye talking about the need to protect migrants etc.
However, there might be another angle to SKS’ move which is he is scared of a threat to Labour on the left flank, particularly from the Greens. In that case, his move does make some sense - it reminds these voters that Labour still cares about social justice issues etc. But what it means is that Labour is effectively giving up on an electoral winning strategy and now is retreating to its base.
I am a member of the Lib Dems but have voted for other parties from time to time in local and mayoral elections, and if I were in a Labour-Tory marginal I wouldn’t hesitate to lend my vote to Labour at a GE, but would still happily support and pay my membership to the Lib Dems.
But to remove Hey Duggie from office I need to vote for the party best positioned to do so, and that is the SNP. I am very clear that I will do so. Morally that doesn't feel right - you can't be a member of a party and not vote for them. Whats more the party constitution rules on membership is clear:
3.8 Membership may be revoked on one or more of the following grounds:
D. membership of or support for another political party in Great Britain.
OK so they would have to catch me voting SNP and its a secret ballot. But its pretty straight forward - my decision to vote for another party is incompatible with membership. So I have resigned. I will vote for them in May's locals, but can't do in the GE.
Starmer has instead likely concluded his best chance of becoming PM is winning most of the Tory Remain marginals in London and the suburbs and a handful of the most marginal RedWall seats, helped by LD tactical votes there now Corbyn has gone. Then hope the LDs pick up Tory Remain marginals in the South and so he can become PM with LD and SNP support even if the Conservatives still win most seats. Hence the appointment of Cooper and Reeves and Lammy to replace Nandy as Labour's top team is dominated by Remainers and People's Vote supporters so he can double down on uniting Remainers behind Labour and the LDs at the next general election having also largely extinguished Corbynites from the top ranks of Labour even though Leavers will largely stick with Boris
I am biased towards preserving existing structures which more or less work and have been proven through time. Coupled with necessary, consensus based, reform when appropriate*
Both of the Justices that you suggest had a specific legal perspective that was shared by many in the majority party. But AFAIK they weren’t party political.
To appoint a sitting VP to the Supreme Court would create a precedent that would be ruthlessly exploited in future. It would completely undermine any chance of SCOTUS being seen as not party political.
But I know you are happy to expand the benches for political advantage so there isn’t much point in debating as you’ve already shown you don’t value the independence of the court. That’s one of those things, like Brexit, where we won’t agree because we value different things. I’m in favour of fairness, integrity and the courts acting as a brake on the executive. I don’t know what you want.
* @HYUFD that’s the definition of a “true” conservative
I am familiar with a Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
Labour has on its side a soon to be struggling economy and some bumps in the Covid road. JohnsonIan Conservatives can more than offset this by some mind-numbingly illiberal policies. Priti as HS was a stroke of populist genius by Johnson. Hanging, flogging and strafing economic migrants in Zodiacs will be meat and drink to the RedWall. Cooper has no answer to this.
I would rather we didn't go for full-on Trumpland, but if that is what is needed to secure the Conservatives in Government, that is what we will get.