I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes. That’s where I am. It’s a fair point.
But. And the but is it’s still nationalism. If you look around the internet the consensus seems to say nationalism isn’t bad, but when in extreme form like in Germany in 1930s it is bad.
Here’s an interesting angle question I asked myself as I read up on Nationalism. The Chinese government today are closer to Germany in 1930s in how they “USE’ nationalism than the SNP certainly are. Am I right?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
I wouldn't underestimate how disliked Nippy Sweetie is.
Really? You may be underestimating how much you're looking at things through your own specifically tinted specs.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Previous thread someone was complaining about our "slow booster roll out" - we're (very) comfortably ahead of our large European peers - and still ahead of the small ones too:
Using ONS 2020 and England data....
The interesting lines to watch are 40-44 and 45-49 - given what we know of COVID, theses are lowest groups in the higher risk zone for hospitalisation etc.
Interesting that the 90+ age group has levelled off some way behind the others, at a guess, this might be because a significate proportion of that age group has died since receiving there second does? if that's not the reason what might be?
Doctors not doing house calls to vaccinate the housebound?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes. That’s where I am. It’s a fair point.
But. And the but is it’s still nationalism. If you look around the internet the consensus seems to say nationalism isn’t bad, but when in extreme form like in Germany in 1930s it is bad.
There's nothing bad about nationalism.
Extremism can lead to bad things, whether that be extremist nationalism, extremist socialism, extremist religion or anything else.
Gandhi was a nationalist, yet some people seem to want to Godwin nationalism into just Hitler and nothing else. 🙄
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
There is however something rather Stalinesque about the efforts by a few PB right-wingers to re-write history and pretend the Nazis were left wing...
Presumably in their eyes right-wing extremism has never led to any nastiness, never - oh no!
It's amazing the lengths lefties will go to defend Nationalism as long as it's Scottish Nationalism
Not me pal - I despise all forms of Nationalism and tbh am deeply suspicious of patriotism, since it leads to nowhere good.
Nowzad say they contacted the prime minister and his wife. FCO official says that the prime minister was involved in ensuring that the dogs got out. The PM denies it all. Truly a mystery and very hard to know who to believe.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
On how to describe people (fpt), I don't really care very much what someone calls me provided they are polite.
What I do care very much about is stopping the use of euphemisms for brutal realities.
So no more "honour killings". The word is "murder". No more "sex with a minor". Child abuse is the phrase. None of this "Minor Attracted Person". Paedophile. And definitely not "non-consensual sex". If it's non-consensual, it's rape.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
See the reason I provided below.
Boris doesn't think he's lying because his memory and mental capacity is shot.
Betting suggestion: book on when Boris first plays the "misspoke" card. end 2021 3/1 2022 evens
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
There is however something rather Stalinesque about the efforts by a few PB right-wingers to re-write history and pretend the Nazis were left wing...
Presumably in their eyes right-wing extremism has never led to any nastiness, never - oh no!
It's amazing the lengths lefties will go to defend Nationalism as long as it's Scottish Nationalism
Not me pal - I despise all forms of Nationalism and tbh am deeply suspicious of patriotism, since it leads to nowhere good.
Excellent! - another Team Yoon member! great to have you in the squad.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
Maybe Carrie intervened directly.
They would mean Boris is being strictly truthful?
Carrie has no position in this Government and therefore no direct say.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Yes, I've read it too. This could be more damaging to the government than many of their other slip-ups over the last few months if it gets traction. The sort of thing that comes from left-field and causes serious trouble for a governing party. It helps that the account is so detailed and reads entirely plausibly. It will upset not just the opposition, but many Tories too - e.g. Nusrat Ghani on WATO.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
See the reason I provided below.
Boris doesn't think he's lying because his memory and mental capacity is shot.
That might be the most dignified way out for all concerned.
Though without an Ernie Saunders style miracle recovery, it might hit the value of his memoirs a bit.
(But seriously, the simplest answer is that BoJo lies because people like to hear comfortable lies more than uncomfortable truths. And BoJo tells people what they want to hear because that makes them like him. He's done it for years, so he's blooming good at it.)
Thanks to whoever posted about the ability to walk in at certain London centres.
After being turned down by my local pharmacy twice (for being 5 months not 6 since my last jab), I just got Pfizered at St Leonard’s Hospital in Hoxton.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
Maybe Carrie intervened directly.
They would mean Boris is being strictly truthful?
Carrie has no position in this Government and therefore no direct say.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
See the reason I provided below.
Boris doesn't think he's lying because his memory and mental capacity is shot.
That might be the most dignified way out for all concerned.
Though without an Ernie Saunders style miracle recovery, it might hit the value of his memoirs a bit.
(But seriously, the simplest answer is that BoJo lies because people like to hear comfortable lies more than uncomfortable truths. And BoJo tells people what they want to hear because that makes them like him. He's done it for years, so he's blooming good at it.)
Big G must be seriously befuddled by Father Christmas’s failure to turn up for the last 75 years.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
Maybe Carrie intervened directly.
They would mean Boris is being strictly truthful?
Carrie has no position in this Government and therefore no direct say.
LOL this is the boss of the Prime Minister fgs. 😀 Unless you say he is the one who “wears the trousers”. You think he would have got into that wall paper scandal if he had any say in it?
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
It should finish Raab. In truth it should finish Johnson too, but don't hold your breath.
And where is bloody Starmer in all this? This is the one thing he is meant to be any good at is holding people to account for criminal and quasi criminal conduct. And not a peep.
It seems like a prime opportunity for Lammy to prove himself as Shadow FS. I've taken about half an hour to read that summary, and there are a good half dozen points which he should be raising/debating on the Today program tomorrow morning. It's a complicated story, and the withdrawal form Kabul was unavoidably chaotic, but the detailed and well structured evidence submitted by Raphael Marshall points to several glaring failures of either/both judgment and/or leadership.
Or perhaps Starmer should just hire @Cyclefree to do the job.
Emily getting stuck in, per the Telegraph
Labour: Dominic Raab should be ashamed of himself Labour's Shadow Attorney General has said that Dominic Raab should be "ashamed of himself" over his handling of Afghanistan.
Speaking on Sky News Emily Thornberry criticised the former Foreign Secretary's behaviour during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
She said: "There is a question about his ability to lead and make decisions."
She added: "Quite frankly he should be ashamed of himself.
When asked if he shouldn't be in his current position, she replied: "of course I'm saying that he shouldn't be Justice Secretary."
Also
"Claims that Boris Johnson ordered the rescue of animals from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover are "entirely untrue", Downing Street has said."
Marshall says the Europe minister's request was rejected, para 210. So if Downing Street deny they overruled that there's a bit of explaining they need to do as to why the rescue then happened. Are they going to say Raab oked it?
Lammy on WATO. Insufficiently forensic given the material handed to him, perhaps, but not bad.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Yes, I've read it too. This could be more damaging to the government than many of their other slip-ups over the last few months if it gets traction. The sort of thing that comes from left-field and causes serious trouble for a governing party. It helps that the account is so detailed and reads entirely plausibly. It will upset not just the opposition, but many Tories too - e.g. Nusrat Ghani on WATO.
Agreed but I am conscious I may be seeing what I wish to see. It will be interesting if any others involved come forward with corroborating or counter narratives. Rather career-limiting for a young civil servant of course.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
It's amazing the lengths lefties will go to defend Nationalism as long as it's Scottish Nationalism
I'm not a big fan of nationalism and I wouldn't vote for the SNP if I lived in Scotland. But the proposition that Scotland should be an independent country is no more nationalistic than the proposition that the UK (but not Scotland) should be an independent country. Nationalism becomes dangerous when it pursues the enemy within (as the Nazis did against Jews, socialists etc) or territorial expansion (as the Nazis did in Eastern Europe) or defines itself along narrow ethnic lines (as the Nazis did). The SNP does none of those things, therefore I am happy to defend it as a wholly legitimate political movement. I don't think you have to be a Leftie to take this position, incidentally. Just not an idiot. 😉
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Thanks to whoever posted about the ability to walk in at certain London centres.
After being turned down by my local pharmacy twice (for being 5 months not 6 since my last jab), I just got Pfizered at St Leonard’s Hospital in Hoxton.
How did you managed that? I though the gap had to be six months.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
6.4 million people in UK remain completely unvaccinated despite being eligible, data shows
More than ten per cent of the UK population eligible for vaccination are yet to receive their first dose, according to data analysed by i.
Around 6.4 million people have not yet had their first dose even though they are eligible. Major cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham have among the highest rates of unvaccinated people anywhere in the country.
Hm - major cities also have the highest levels of transient populations. Might it be that those identified as unvaccinated aren't actually there any more?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Yes, agreed. I was trying to frame something similar myself. The former is typically anti-colonialist, the latter is frequently colonialist in nature. Ghandi for example was very much an anti-colonialist; Hitler, not so much.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
Of course it could be in play at the next election.
Lets say we get a very similar tally to 2017 but the DUP are only just not enough. Then the Lib Dems would just need to not back a 'coalition of chaos' and abstain to allow the Tories to continue in office as a minority government, possibly with Johnson resigning and being replaced.
That's just saying that RP's "Not Tories" block wouldn't have the numbers to form a stable government, isn't it? It's true in those circumstances that the largest party would supply the PM, Johnson would be very likely to go, and there would be a very shortlived caretaker administration followed by an election which Sunak (or whoever) would either win or not. It isn't at all like 2010 - Johnson's Tories are quite genuinely uncoalitionable.
I do like the continued use of "coalition of chaos". I suspect it resonates with many, but I always enjoy the irony that the Coalition was easily the most stable, predictable Government of the UK this century. There are a hell of a lot of moderate Tories in Lib Dem seats lost in 2015 who would have secured a much, much better result in terms of their own political outlook had they held their noses and voted Lib Dem, but hindsight's 20/20 - it wasn't really predictable that the seeds of the death of Cameron's brand of Conservative Party were sown in what must have felt like a brilliant victory in 2015.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was quite stable because there were a lot of similarities between Cameron's Conservatives and Clegg's Lib Dems. Its what made them such good coalition partners.
The problem for Labour now is that Labour/SNP/others is a chaotic coalition in the way that the Conservative/Lib Dem one wasn't. The SNP are agents of chaos so anything involving them is going to be chaotic.
A Labour/Lib Dem coalition is viable but extremely unlikely. A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price. A Labour/SNP/Lib Dem one is just not plausible in my eyes. That's why Labour gaining the seats not the Lib Dems is in my view so important if Starmer were to become PM.
"A Labour/SNP one would be rough but viable, but the SNP would demand their referendum as a price"
They can demand what they like but they won't get IndyRef2 from Starmer. The SNP have no option but to put Sir Keir into number 10 - what else would they do, put the Tories in?
The most they'll get will be some kind of devo offer, along the lines of what Gordon Brown has been talking about.
A hung parliament is actually a pretty ticklish issue for Sturgeon/Blackford to manage. If they deliberately sponsor chaos it would likely backfire as that is not what most Scots want their politicians to do.
They don't have to put anyone in. They can reject any agreement that doesn't contain Indyref2.
The Tories then remain in power by default, with Sturgeon and Blackford saying "agree to a referendum and the Tories are out".
They have no reason to let Starmer deny them their right to hold a referendum. Why would he buy the cow if they give the milk away for free?
You must be joking. If the SNP screw around and the result is continuing Tory rule they will be toast. Simples.
No you're joking.
The SNP don't care anymore between Tory or Red Tory . They want their own country and that comes first, second, third and last in their priority list.
If Sturgeon holds the balance of power and doesn't get a referendum then she will be toast. And if the Red Tories are denying the Scots a referendum then why should they be put into Downing Street.
Its a new referendum or nothing if the SNP holds the balance of power. The Red Tories will just have to pay up if they want to oust the real Tories.
Depends TBH, I don't think the SNP will necessarily much choice in a hung parliament overall, certainly not if the Lib Dems also hold the balance of power who are more unambiguously anti 2nd ref than Labour.
A lot of people who support Sturgeon are also either soft indy supporters or even soft unionists who are happy with the can continually being kicked down the road, besides all the careerist elected representatives.
I'm not necessarily as anti 2nd indy ref as some people on here but I think the idea of the SNP dictating the terms and timing of a 2nd ref still is massively problematic.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
Part 2.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
I believe Downing Street denied at the time that rescue animals were airlifted from Kabul at the PM’s request.
The whistleblower says otherwise.
The whistleblower says the request came from Wendy Morton MP, Minister for Europe, not Downing street, and such ministerial interventions to highlight particular cases were routine and perfectly appropriate
It should finish Raab. In truth it should finish Johnson too, but don't hold your breath.
And where is bloody Starmer in all this? This is the one thing he is meant to be any good at is holding people to account for criminal and quasi criminal conduct. And not a peep.
It seems like a prime opportunity for Lammy to prove himself as Shadow FS. I've taken about half an hour to read that summary, and there are a good half dozen points which he should be raising/debating on the Today program tomorrow morning. It's a complicated story, and the withdrawal form Kabul was unavoidably chaotic, but the detailed and well structured evidence submitted by Raphael Marshall points to several glaring failures of either/both judgment and/or leadership.
Or perhaps Starmer should just hire @Cyclefree to do the job.
Emily getting stuck in, per the Telegraph
Labour: Dominic Raab should be ashamed of himself Labour's Shadow Attorney General has said that Dominic Raab should be "ashamed of himself" over his handling of Afghanistan.
Speaking on Sky News Emily Thornberry criticised the former Foreign Secretary's behaviour during the Afghanistan withdrawal.
She said: "There is a question about his ability to lead and make decisions."
She added: "Quite frankly he should be ashamed of himself.
When asked if he shouldn't be in his current position, she replied: "of course I'm saying that he shouldn't be Justice Secretary."
Also
"Claims that Boris Johnson ordered the rescue of animals from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover are "entirely untrue", Downing Street has said."
Marshall says the Europe minister's request was rejected, para 210. So if Downing Street deny they overruled that there's a bit of explaining they need to do as to why the rescue then happened. Are they going to say Raab oked it?
Dom was on holiday for goodness sake. None of this was his fault.
It's "Skeletor's Minions Problem" which Churchill never had because Major Clem Attlee was deputy PM in WW2 - and also the last person off the beach during the evacuation of Gallipoli (Churchill's big disaster).
Boris has removed anyone and everyone who is willing to tell him his ideas are stupid.
Also from that link: a helpful bloke from the charity called Dominic Dyer has just told LBC that absolutely they spoke to Carrie and johnson fixed it for them. Surely that is him nailed as a liar?
How many nails have you already got? The coffin lid still remains firmly open.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
If Labour makes significant gains at the next GE, but not in Scotland,, then the stench of death will still cling to them north of the border.
In that scenario there just might be an escape for the SNP: "The only way we can stop the Tories forever is by becoming independent - Labour must give us that chance".
That line benefits from a febrile environment during the negotiations (remember 2010), the possibility of yet another minority Tory government lording it over Scotland, and the fact it's true.
Sturgeon would also be under massive internal pressure to stand by indyref2.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Yugoslavia in the round tbf.
But 19th Cent. German nationalism was awesome. Aside from 1870, 1914 and 1939... anyone can make a few small mistakes....
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
Part 2.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
Many of Orwell's archetypes are still with us. Negative nationalism, for example, is a perfect fit for Corbynites and similar.
The individual examples may have changed, but the structure of nationalism he describes is as true to day as one hundred years ago.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Yes, I've read it too. This could be more damaging to the government than many of their other slip-ups over the last few months if it gets traction. The sort of thing that comes from left-field and causes serious trouble for a governing party. It helps that the account is so detailed and reads entirely plausibly. It will upset not just the opposition, but many Tories too - e.g. Nusrat Ghani on WATO.
It's very hard to believe that this stuff was invented. Take the detail about left alone on one particulate shift. This was the five days of the most urgent evacuation in recent memory, and his group was tasked with prioritising among thousands of applications for evacuation, with room to take only hundreds - an almost impossible task for a well staffed operation. It beggars belief that an organisation with the resources of the FCO should allow this, but it's impossible that he could invent this and get away with it.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are Brexit supporters or Scottish Nationalists more likely to have painted their face with their flag?
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
And yet, Leave won and Yes lost, which suggests to me that the voters aren't that interested in the nationalist elements of the arguments.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
As I understand it the Bosnian Serbs were very much in favour of remaining part of 'an existing nation' (Yugoslavia as was), and Republika Srpska was the somewhat ramshackle compromise (after a lot of killing) to make up for not being part of greater Serbia.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Yes, I've read it too. This could be more damaging to the government than many of their other slip-ups over the last few months if it gets traction. The sort of thing that comes from left-field and causes serious trouble for a governing party. It helps that the account is so detailed and reads entirely plausibly. It will upset not just the opposition, but many Tories too - e.g. Nusrat Ghani on WATO.
It's very hard to believe that this stuff was invented. Take the detail about left alone on one particulate shift. This was the five days of the most urgent evacuation in recent memory, and his group was tasked with prioritising among thousands of applications for evacuation, with room to take only hundreds - an almost impossible task for a well staffed operation. It beggars belief that an organisation with the resources of the FCO should allow this, but it's impossible that he could invent this and get away with it.
And sooo easily disproved just takes one guy to say I was there too
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Yugoslavia in the round tbf.
The IRA were nationalists, weren't they?
So were the Unionists, too. And are.
Since I don't recall ever hearing anyone on here espousing a world government and abolition of the nation state, I think it's probably true to say that everyone on here is a nationalist. Whether Scotland should be an independent country is a debate with nationalists on both sides. In fact, despite being a lukewarm supporter of Scottish independence, I am probably one of the least nationalistic people on here.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
You mean like these fellas?
Scottish Resistance. Who are a very odd lot altogether.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
I don't think Raab's suggestion he was too junior to understand what was going on is terribly clever.
Especially since the evidence suggests that the lack of understanding was on Raab's part!
I suspect many of us have had to deal with the incompetent senior manager who hides behind the the "I need more / differently formatted data" excuse for inaction.
It certainly reminds me of a few I have had to deal with in the past but never in anything like such a distressing situation.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
But that is what they call themselves, which is rather the point!
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are Brexit supporters or Scottish Nationalists more likely to have painted their face with their flag?
Different ages, remember. Teenagers versus old farts.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
The example of the US Confederacy suggests that's a less than clear-cut distinction.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Funnily enough there are reasonable people and wronguns in every nation and every movement. I'm sure the independence movement in Scotland has its fair share of both social democratic freedom lovers and Anglophobe blood and soil nationalists, just as for example the independence movements of the Baltic states or Ukraine always contained both liberal globalists and hate filled Russophobes.
And England has its globally minded civic patriots and those blokes on the bridge over the Blackwall tunnel.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
And indeed a US animal charity appears to have carried on over there since the evacuation, with the cooperation of the Taliban.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
Yes, I've read it too. This could be more damaging to the government than many of their other slip-ups over the last few months if it gets traction. The sort of thing that comes from left-field and causes serious trouble for a governing party. It helps that the account is so detailed and reads entirely plausibly. It will upset not just the opposition, but many Tories too - e.g. Nusrat Ghani on WATO.
It's very hard to believe that this stuff was invented. Take the detail about left alone on one particulate shift. This was the five days of the most urgent evacuation in recent memory, and his group was tasked with prioritising among thousands of applications for evacuation, with room to take only hundreds - an almost impossible task for a well staffed operation. It beggars belief that an organisation with the resources of the FCO should allow this, but it's impossible that he could invent this and get away with it.
And sooo easily disproved just takes one guy to say I was there too
Johnson will probably be along any moment to explain how he and Carrie did a shift classifying emails on the Sunday night.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
That final sentence is a masterpiece of deadpan.
Still reading, having fast forwarded from an earlier mention which is also a fine exampler of deadpan
"On 25 August extreme measures were therefore being taken to preserve the extremely limited capacity at the airport. The measures taken include the Foreign Office requesting HMA Kabul not evacuate the embassy guards, British soldiers (entirely correctly) forcibly removing people from the Baron Hotel, and the Foreign Office refusing numerous requests from Secretaries of State to evacuate highly eligible people. In this context, we received an instruction from the Prime Minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals."
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
I do and I'm giving you my answer. Nationalism is bad if it's based on a feeling of either superiority or inferiority to others (these 2 things often co-existing) and the more it's based on that the badder it is. The Nazis are at the extreme end of this. Then an additional point I'm making, that you're more likely to get this bad nationalism in a movement promoting an existing nation - eg MAGA, UKIP, BNP, and those other egs I gave - than you are in a movement for the creation of a new nation, eg SNP, Catalonia, Quebec etc. So, say the SNP achieve an independent Scotland and afterwards continue to be a strongly nationalist party making a massive noisy deal about "putting Scotland first" or "making Scotland great again", then you'd in all probability be looking at some nasty type nationalism. The SNP would have gone bad. But atm, no, they're cool, least on this score.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
I visited the site of Flodden Field 2 or 3 weeks ago. Deeply moving. The song is a bit selective about Anglo Scottish battles.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
But that is what they call themselves, which is rather the point!
No nationalist ever says that *their* nationalism (or allied nationalisms) are problematic.
Since the idea that "nationalism" is bad has gained currency, you get nationalists who furiously deny they are nationalists.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Funnily enough there are reasonable people and wronguns in every nation and every movement. I'm sure the independence movement in Scotland has its fair share of both social democratic freedom lovers and Anglophobe blood and soil nationalists, just as for example the independence movements of the Baltic states or Ukraine always contained both liberal globalists and hate filled Russophobes.
And England has its globally minded civic patriots and those blokes on the bridge over the Blackwall tunnel.
I thought the only thing over the Blackwall Tunnel was the River Thames...
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
But that is what they call themselves, which is rather the point!
No nationalist ever says that *their* nationalism (or allied nationalisms) are problematic.
Since the idea that "nationalism" is bad has gained currency, you get nationalists who furiously deny they are nationalists.
The Catalan independistas can't very well call themselves nacionalistas, as that is already taken (in Castilian in a Spanish context), can they? So they have to use something else.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
That final sentence is a masterpiece of deadpan.
Still reading, having fast forwarded from an earlier mention which is also a fine exampler of deadpan
"On 25 August extreme measures were therefore being taken to preserve the extremely limited capacity at the airport. The measures taken include the Foreign Office requesting HMA Kabul not evacuate the embassy guards, British soldiers (entirely correctly) forcibly removing people from the Baron Hotel, and the Foreign Office refusing numerous requests from Secretaries of State to evacuate highly eligible people. In this context, we received an instruction from the Prime Minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals."
The bit towards the end (224 on, I think) about issuing (or rather failing to issue) visas in order to facilitate escape through third countries - in this case Pakistan - also suggests major systemic failure.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
It's a telegraph article - given the other publicity I suspect this has everything to do with the Telegraph point scoring and nothing at all to do with what is a very expensive BBC / PBS joint production.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
It's a telegraph article - given the other publicity I suspect this has everything to do with the Telegraph and nothing at all to do with what is a very expensive BBC / PBS joint production.
It isn't the Telegraph, its David Tennant's own words.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
"There was a direct trade-off between transporting Nowzad’s animals and evacuating British nationals and Afghans evacuees, including Afghans who had served with British soldiers. 213. This is because soldiers tasked with escorting the dogs through the crowd and into the airport would by definition have otherwise been deployed to support the evacuation of British nationals or Afghans prioritised for evacuation, notably by helping families out of the dangerous crowd into the airport. As noted in paragraph 125, the limited number of British soldiers available to help UK visa holders and British citizens from the crowd into the airport was an important limiting factor on our ability to evacuate people. 214. Nowzad’s staff were subsequently granted visas for the UK and assisted to cross into Pakistan. This was an exception to our then policy. At this point, we were not granting further visas to any other Afghans even if they had served the UK and were at direct risk of murder."
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
Comments
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/41257/pdf/
But. And the but is it’s still nationalism. If you look around the internet the consensus seems to say nationalism isn’t bad, but when in extreme form like in Germany in 1930s it is bad.
Here’s an interesting angle question I asked myself as I read up on Nationalism. The Chinese government today are closer to Germany in 1930s in how they “USE’ nationalism than the SNP certainly are. Am I right?
It's well known that English Lefties love the stupid cow.
I don't think Raab's suggestion he was too junior to understand what was going on is terribly clever.
Extremism can lead to bad things, whether that be extremist nationalism, extremist socialism, extremist religion or anything else.
Gandhi was a nationalist, yet some people seem to want to Godwin nationalism into just Hitler and nothing else. 🙄
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
What I do care very much about is stopping the use of euphemisms for brutal realities.
So no more "honour killings". The word is "murder".
No more "sex with a minor". Child abuse is the phrase.
None of this "Minor Attracted Person". Paedophile.
And definitely not "non-consensual sex". If it's non-consensual, it's rape.
I would cut him some slack.
In other news - I have to go on a beer run.
Laters.
They would mean Boris is being strictly truthful?
Though without an Ernie Saunders style miracle recovery, it might hit the value of his memoirs a bit.
(But seriously, the simplest answer is that BoJo lies because people like to hear comfortable lies more than uncomfortable truths. And BoJo tells people what they want to hear because that makes them like him. He's done it for years, so he's blooming good at it.)
After being turned down by my local pharmacy twice (for being 5 months not 6 since my last jab), I just got Pfizered at St Leonard’s Hospital in Hoxton.
You think he would have got into that wall paper scandal if he had any say in it?
Insufficiently forensic given the material handed to him, perhaps, but not bad.
"Should consider his position".
Nationalism becomes dangerous when it pursues the enemy within (as the Nazis did against Jews, socialists etc) or territorial expansion (as the Nazis did in Eastern Europe) or defines itself along narrow ethnic lines (as the Nazis did). The SNP does none of those things, therefore I am happy to defend it as a wholly legitimate political movement.
I don't think you have to be a Leftie to take this position, incidentally. Just not an idiot. 😉
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
And he manages to be ripped, despite also being a skeleton.
A lot of people who support Sturgeon are also either soft indy supporters or even soft unionists who are happy with the can continually being kicked down the road, besides all the careerist elected representatives.
I'm not necessarily as anti 2nd indy ref as some people on here but I think the idea of the SNP dictating the terms and timing of a 2nd ref still is massively problematic.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
The she sacked him...
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
In that scenario there just might be an escape for the SNP: "The only way we can stop the Tories forever is by becoming independent - Labour must give us that chance".
That line benefits from a febrile environment during the negotiations (remember 2010), the possibility of yet another minority Tory government lording it over Scotland, and the fact it's true.
Sturgeon would also be under massive internal pressure to stand by indyref2.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
The individual examples may have changed, but the structure of nationalism he describes is as true to day as one hundred years ago.
Take the detail about left alone on one particulate shift. This was the five days of the most urgent evacuation in recent memory, and his group was tasked with prioritising among thousands of applications for evacuation, with room to take only hundreds - an almost impossible task for a well staffed operation. It beggars belief that an organisation with the resources of the FCO should allow this, but it's impossible that he could invent this and get away with it.
You are a nationalist
He/She is a Nazi.
In fact, despite being a lukewarm supporter of Scottish independence, I am probably one of the least nationalistic people on here.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
It certainly reminds me of a few I have had to deal with in the past but never in anything like such a distressing situation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11899/12489019/jude-bellingham-fined-but-avoids-suspension-from-german-fa-for-referee-comments
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what?
2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment?
3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban
would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for
concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others
would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Ariel: Contract signed to build European planet telescope
A €200m (£170m) contract has been signed with European industry to build the Ariel space telescope.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59555684
And England has its globally minded civic patriots and those blokes on the bridge over the Blackwall tunnel.
"On 25 August extreme measures were therefore being taken to preserve the
extremely limited capacity at the airport. The measures taken include the Foreign
Office requesting HMA Kabul not evacuate the embassy guards, British soldiers
(entirely correctly) forcibly removing people from the Baron Hotel, and the Foreign
Office refusing numerous requests from Secretaries of State to evacuate highly
eligible people. In this context, we received an instruction from the Prime Minister to
use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals."
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/
Since the idea that "nationalism" is bad has gained currency, you get nationalists who furiously deny they are nationalists.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties?
6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
evacuating British nationals and Afghans evacuees, including Afghans who had
served with British soldiers.
213. This is because soldiers tasked with escorting the dogs through the crowd
and into the airport would by definition have otherwise been deployed to support
the evacuation of British nationals or Afghans prioritised for evacuation, notably by
helping families out of the dangerous crowd into the airport. As noted in paragraph
125, the limited number of British soldiers available to help UK visa holders and
British citizens from the crowd into the airport was an important limiting factor on
our ability to evacuate people.
214. Nowzad’s staff were subsequently granted visas for the UK and assisted to
cross into Pakistan. This was an exception to our then policy. At this point, we were
not granting further visas to any other Afghans even if they had served the UK and
were at direct risk of murder."
Very revealinhg, as @Nigelb has just pointed out.
But there is a lot more and not just about the pets. Not that it ever was just about the animals.
It will be very interesting to see the rebuttals to this statement.