At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You think there is a replacement PM lined up such that Boris would depart as PM at once?
Edit: He only needs to get to Wednesday to go past Brown's tenure. To Saturday to beat the Iron Duke.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
VAT and fuel duty are still about half the cost of an imperial pint of petrol, so let's not pretend the government can do nothing. And our Scots cousins are still digging oil out of the North Sea, so a high price is not all bad news on the revenue front.
Aiui OPEC is talking about increased production which might help stabilise prices.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
With our overcrowding, not sure we could or should do that on most commuter trains but why not experiment a bit with very low fares at other times. People have got used to working from home and flexible hours so no reason everyone has to arrive between 8-9 and leave around 5-6.
In an interview on Russian state TV on Sunday, Mr Putin said: "In general, all this fuss about additional arms supplies, in my opinion, has only one goal, to stretch the armed conflict as long as possible."
By golly detective Putin, I think you've cracked this mystery. They don't want you to be able to win quickly and easily you say?
We need to turn this argument around. Delivering weapons is about speeding up the end of the conflict. Not delivering weapons means years of internecine conflict from partisans who are not going to accept Russian occupation. It took 10 years to get them out of Afghanistan. Better to get them out of Ukraine in a few months.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave
You confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country. Treason is the latter. When the leader is out of touch and consistently making bad decisions, as Thatcher was by the end of her reign, it is the job of those around them to either get them to improve or leave. Generally, such leaders, are not much interested in advice on how they could change or improve, so best to move them on.
In an interview on Russian state TV on Sunday, Mr Putin said: "In general, all this fuss about additional arms supplies, in my opinion, has only one goal, to stretch the armed conflict as long as possible."
By golly detective Putin, I think you've cracked this mystery. They don't want you to be able to win quickly and easily you say?
We need to turn this argument around. Delivering weapons is about speeding up the end of the conflict. Not delivering weapons means years of internecine conflict from partisans who are not going to accept Russian occupation. It took 10 years to get them out of Afghanistan. Better to get them out of Ukraine in a few months.
I'm thinking of all those irresponsible places who sought to stretch the armed conflict as long as possible by aiding Britain in the Battle of Britain.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
War correspondents and bloggers more and more start attacking each other in their telegram exchanges once one of them decides to take the responsibility of saying things how they are, which by the way (the exchanges) are seen by hundreds and thousands if not millions of people, mostly Russians. Some are really off the hook. Just today when I posted the translation of the text by some “Murz” once again slamming the inhumane treatment of mobilised L/DPR men, I mentioned briefly the continuous pounces at him from his fellow “Z-bras”. He was verbally attacked by a number of very significant Russian telegram channels, including “Starshe Edd’y“, “Voenkor Kotyonok Z” – to the point where threats of physical violence are not uncommon anymore.
It was fairly obvious it would be a failure after just a few weeks. You only had to be able to do some basic arithmetic to see that Russia was heading into a debacle that would make the Soviet-Afghan War look like a good idea.
In an interview on Russian state TV on Sunday, Mr Putin said: "In general, all this fuss about additional arms supplies, in my opinion, has only one goal, to stretch the armed conflict as long as possible."
By golly detective Putin, I think you've cracked this mystery. They don't want you to be able to win quickly and easily you say?
We need to turn this argument around. Delivering weapons is about speeding up the end of the conflict. Not delivering weapons means years of internecine conflict from partisans who are not going to accept Russian occupation. It took 10 years to get them out of Afghanistan. Better to get them out of Ukraine in a few months.
Now there's an opportunity for Putin. He can thwart those dastardly westerners who want to prolong the conflict. Just declare the Special Military Operation over, and ya-boo to Nato and the Nazi sympathisers.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
With respect Boris has trashed his own brand all by himself, and for the good of the conservative party and the country he must go and the sooner the better
The conservative party with a new leader has a chance to reset the narrative and actually hold off Starmer and labour at GE24
You only need to see how many on here have vowed to rejoin/support the party once Boris has gone and that could start within the next week
Time for you to get behind removing Boris, and then the new conservative leader and PM ( as you will do in the end anyway)
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Mind you I recall @NickPalmer reporting on Batley and Spen and it was his posts about how labour was doing that made me think labour had a chance there and they won.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave
You confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country. Treason is the latter. When the leader is out of touch and consistently making bad decisions, as Thatcher was by the end of her reign, it is the job of those around them to either get them to improve or leave. Generally, such leaders, are not much interested in advice on how they could change or improve, so best to move them on.
Taking out Thatcher or Boris could well be the wrong move. It could certainly be seen as disloyal by many in the party, perhaps even by some without it too.
But treachery? They were not Emperor Boris or Empress Thatcher, they serve at the pleasure of the party, they are not owed eternal loyalty even if loyalists would argue they deserve more gratitude.
Whether the party is making a mistake or not by taking those actions is a different matter to it being treacherous.
I also find the seeming praise for Thatcher never forgiving her ousting very interesting. I seem to recall a lot of criticism about her predecessor never forgiving her for ousting him.
It would actually be very interesting if the threshold is reached and yet very few additional MPs vote against Boris when push comes to shove.
Opponents are not going to get behind him just because he wins (he didn't when the same happened to May), but if it is overwhelming would that at least buy him some peace and quiet?
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave
You confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country. Treason is the latter. When the leader is out of touch and consistently making bad decisions, as Thatcher was by the end of her reign, it is the job of those around them to either get them to improve or leave. Generally, such leaders, are not much interested in advice on how they could change or improve, so best to move them on.
Taking out Thatcher or Boris could well be the wrong move. It could certainly be seen as disloyal by many in the party, perhaps even by some without it too.
But treachery? They were not Emperor Boris or Empress Thatcher, they serve at the pleasure of the party, they are not owed eternal loyalty even if loyalists would argue they deserve more gratitude.
Whether the party is making a mistake or not by taking those actions is a different matter to it being treacherous.
I also find the seeming praise for Thatcher never forgiving her ousting very interesting. I seem to recall a lot of criticism about her predecessor never forgiving her for ousting him.
Heath though did lose 3 out of 4 of the general elections he fought as Tory leader.
Thatcher won all 3 general elections she fought as leader by contrast
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave
You confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country. Treason is the latter. When the leader is out of touch and consistently making bad decisions, as Thatcher was by the end of her reign, it is the job of those around them to either get them to improve or leave. Generally, such leaders, are not much interested in advice on how they could change or improve, so best to move them on.
Taking out Thatcher or Boris could well be the wrong move. It could certainly be seen as disloyal by many in the party, perhaps even by some without it too.
But treachery? They were not Emperor Boris or Empress Thatcher, they serve at the pleasure of the party, they are not owed eternal loyalty even if loyalists would argue they deserve more gratitude.
Whether the party is making a mistake or not by taking those actions is a different matter to it being treacherous.
I also find the seeming praise for Thatcher never forgiving her ousting very interesting. I seem to recall a lot of criticism about her predecessor never forgiving her for ousting him.
Heath though did lose 3 out of 4 of the general elections he fought as Tory leader.
Thatcher won all 3 general elections she fought as leader by contrast
Yes, but that factors into analyses of whether it was a mistake to oust a leader or not.
But language is important - treachery implies something very morally wrong about an action, far beyond disloyal action.
Put it this way - say Boris is ousted and Hunt takes over as leader (unlikely, but let's suppose). If his supporters then declared it was treachery to go against him (rather than merely disloyal), would that be ok?
If it wouldn't be, why is it ok for Thatcher or Boris to regard attacks on their leadership as treachery?
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
Boris isn't Thatcher. Boris isn't Blair. Circumstances are different. Extrapolating from two data points is crayola-level stupid. Especially when in one of those cases the party that ousted their leader won a majority the next election.
Quite so. Hyufd think would say: exploitative contempt for the peasantry worked a treat for your ancestors Louis I to XV inclusive, your Maj, why would anyone depart from the formula?
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Only a complete and utter fucking ct would think it was
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
So inflation down to 2% and the economy back on track by the end of the week.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Only a complete and utter fucking ct would think it was
"I‘m getting people coming up to me and greeting me with that smile and the tilt of the head that’s usually reserved when your labrador puppy has just been run over."
Many Tories believe the threshold is reached or close to being reached. But there is believed to be some traffic in both directions. Some newer MPs are said to be nervous of acting too soon and are considering pushing to delay a confidence vote until after 23 June.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
Boris isn't Thatcher. Boris isn't Blair. Circumstances are different. Extrapolating from two data points is crayola-level stupid. Especially when in one of those cases the party that ousted their leader won a majority the next election.
Quite so. Hyufd think would say: exploitative contempt for the peasantry worked a treat for your ancestors Louis I to XV inclusive, your Maj, why would anyone depart from the formula?
None of those monarchs were elected and they were effectively absolute not constitutional monarchs.
My own personal view is that PMs who win general election majorities should be allowed to serve a full term and be judged again by the voters at the next general election not stabbed in the back by their own MPs
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave
You confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country. Treason is the latter. When the leader is out of touch and consistently making bad decisions, as Thatcher was by the end of her reign, it is the job of those around them to either get them to improve or leave. Generally, such leaders, are not much interested in advice on how they could change or improve, so best to move them on.
You're forgetting. It is the role of the UK, incl the C of E, HMtQ, the Scouts, and the Wallingford Tiddlywinks Club, to sustain the Conservative Party forever. Not the other way round.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
We have services being cut in the north east at the moment. Demand is down mainly due to people still working from home and they just don’t have the money to keep going at the current level.
Cut prices you may get more people travelling off peak but you won’t replace the lost revenue or get people travelling who work from home. The govt would have to put a large chunk of cash in to fund it.
Buses don’t tend to go to industrial estates either and certainly not at the times of start of morning shift or end of late shift.
It’s a nice idea on paper. It wouldn’t work in practise and would really only benefit those already using buses
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Mind you I recall @NickPalmer reporting on Batley and Spen and it was his posts about how labour was doing that made me think labour had a chance there and they won.
Depends a lot on who is doing the reporting. David H, Nick P and Marquee Mark all have good records.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
With respect Boris has trashed his own brand all by himself, and for the good of the conservative party and the country he must go and the sooner the better
The conservative party with a new leader has a chance to reset the narrative and actually hold off Starmer and labour at GE24
You only need to see how many on here have vowed to rejoin/support the party once Boris has gone and that could start within the next week
Time for you to get behind removing Boris, and then the new conservative leader and PM ( as you will do in the end anyway)
Thatcher/Boris comparisons are way out.
Mrs Thatcher was removed due to a combination of a very bad policy - the poll tax - and divisions over Europe.
With Boris it's purely down to his personal failings and a now overwhelming sense that he is unfit to be PM.
The only thing they have in common is the prospect of a terrible election outcome - probably much worse with Boris than Thatcher, because she at least was, personally, held in respect.
Getting rid of Boris will not have the damaging repercussions that removing Mrs T had, because the motive isn't political. There is no band of Boris loyalists to hold the light for him and his policies. No-one is "betraying" him. He's betrayed himself.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
Boris isn't Thatcher. Boris isn't Blair. Circumstances are different. Extrapolating from two data points is crayola-level stupid. Especially when in one of those cases the party that ousted their leader won a majority the next election.
Quite so. Hyufd think would say: exploitative contempt for the peasantry worked a treat for your ancestors Louis I to XV inclusive, your Maj, why would anyone depart from the formula?
None of those monarchs were elected and they were effectively absolute not constitutional monarchs.
My own personal view is that PMs who win general election majorities should be allowed to serve a full term and be judged again by the voters at the next general election not stabbed in the back by their own MPs
"Full term" as defined by those self-same PMs? Pull the other one, it's got jellyfish and barnacles on in the form of Tory MPs.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
"I‘m getting people coming up to me and greeting me with that smile and the tilt of the head that’s usually reserved when your labrador puppy has just been run over."
Many Tories believe the threshold is reached or close to being reached. But there is believed to be some traffic in both directions. Some newer MPs are said to be nervous of acting too soon and are considering pushing to delay a confidence vote until after 23 June.
Ffs just get on with it you ridiculous spineless pussies. Its the easiest quandary you'll ever face. He is done. There is no way back for him. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Grow a set and be rid of him. You'll feel instant relief.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
Part of me thinks, what a great outcome for all that would be. Then reality bites and I believe we just need to get rid of this dangerous and incompetent clown as soon as possible.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
Also worth inquiring into the supposed indepdence of the UK nocular deterrent. I've been to see HMS Conqueror in Plymouth Dockyard (a nuclear submarine, for those who don't know; now out of service and preserv ed there). We were not allowed into the entire stern half (more or less) as that was US tech and still top secret about 50 years on. Trident is no better.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Just inarticulacy.
Definitely not. Swearing can be a high art at times. To swear creatively is one of the crown jewels of rhetoric; it's a skill to be admired when you see it done well. A good swear can disable an opponent, disarm and audience, or diffuse a tense moment. To do it well requires memory to know what has gone before, a poetic reflex to know what words complement which others, and the self-confidence to deliver it knowing that you are definitely touching taboos and often escalating an argument. These things don't come easily to all.
It might be acceptable as a substitute for prolixity. But it's just one inadequacy covering another.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
There is no chance whatsoever that the Tories will even be close in Tiverton & Honiton. The two by-elections will be car-crashes.
It needs to be stated - the public does not necessarily resile, per se, from the Conservative Govt. It has a defensible record and the alternative is uninspiring. But it has had it with Boris. And the ship will go down with the captain if he's not removed.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
No; I used them very heavily when I was working, and my colleagues who still do also use them.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
No; I used them very heavily when I was working, and my colleagues who still do also use them.
Well then your experience isn't that of most of the country is all I can say. For most of us bus is the option to take when hitchhiking has been ruled out
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
You have that the wrong way round. The elections were not lost because the leaders were deposed, but rather the leaders were deposed because the elections were thought lost otherwise. Correctly by the Tories, and fairly near correct by Labour, with the GFC getting in the way.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
No; I used them very heavily when I was working, and my colleagues who still do also use them.
Well then your experience isn't that of most of the country is all I can say. For most of us bus is the option to take when hitchhiking has been ruled out
Well, all I can say is that much of England really ****ed up when it went for bus privatisation. The Lothian councils still own Lothian Buses and give a - not perfect, but pretty useful service.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
Boris isn't Thatcher. Boris isn't Blair. Circumstances are different. Extrapolating from two data points is crayola-level stupid. Especially when in one of those cases the party that ousted their leader won a majority the next election.
Quite so. Hyufd think would say: exploitative contempt for the peasantry worked a treat for your ancestors Louis I to XV inclusive, your Maj, why would anyone depart from the formula?
None of those monarchs were elected and they were effectively absolute not constitutional monarchs.
My own personal view is that PMs who win general election majorities should be allowed to serve a full term and be judged again by the voters at the next general election not stabbed in the back by their own MPs
That is a licence for a PM to do anything they want no matter how damaging to his mps and the country
A PM elected with a majority is not free to behave in a callous, thoughtless, dishonest manner and expect there will not be any consequences and Boris is no exception
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
I'm enjoying the contrasting views. @Casino_Royale I agree and was using a lazy trope which you're right to call out, notwithstanding @Farooq's interesting article (thanks). Whatever America has done over the past couple of hundred years, it is not empire as we would know the term, nor is it, I think, as overt as what China is likely to do in the coming hundred years. I would argue it has probably had as much influence on the world as it is today as Britain's empire, though.
@Luckyguy1983 I wasn't actually directly comparing the two (I was comparing America's not-quite-imperialism with a future Chinese version).
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
No; I used them very heavily when I was working, and my colleagues who still do also use them.
You can save a lot on fuel bills with a Lothian bus pass. And from the top floor get to know how other peoples' gardens are arranged. No need ever to alight.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
I'm enjoying the contrasting views. @Casino_Royale I agree and was using a lazy trope which you're right to call out, notwithstanding @Farooq's interesting article (thanks). Whatever America has done over the past couple of hundred years, it is not empire as we would know the term, nor is it, I think, as overt as what China is likely to do in the coming hundred years. I would argue it has probably had as much influence on the world as it is today as Britain's empire, though.
@Luckyguy1983 I wasn't actually directly comparing the two (I was comparing America's not-quite-imperialism with a future Chinese version).
But you are casting China in America's role. In actuality, though America is declining, it is not going to disappear from the face of the earth imminently, and will still have a powerful military. So China will not be world hegemon in the same way that the USA was after the collapse of the USSR.
What is more likely is a situation with multiple powers, and I don't think that Britain has anything to fear from that. As a matter of fact, 'balance of powers' was the overriding aim of British foreign policy for many years.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
Some qualifiers are needed...you open the door to (a small number of) people (very occasionally) claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
Thanks.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
You have that the wrong way round. The elections were not lost because the leaders were deposed, but rather the leaders were deposed because the elections were thought lost otherwise. Correctly by the Tories, and fairly near correct by Labour, with the GFC getting in the way.
That's the bit that the Conservative-minded really fear. That, even without Boris, the election of 2024 ends in defeat. It will have been fourteen and a bit years, the opposition won't look scary (even Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket might leave English voters thinking "why not?") and the economy will have been miserable. And nobody out there has his magic touch.
Ditching Johnson will still be the right thing to do, even if it's just turning a likely rout into a defeat. But to admit to oneself that it's just about cutting losses... Not an easy step to take emotionally.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
The world will always have hegemonic powers. The USA is better than most.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
I think the suggestion is that taking this line is better than immediately assuming something like 'victims are liars'. But I don't agree with either approach. I was just making the point that people always like a simple answer.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
And in both instances, those failures of the Americans will being done occurred due to unexpected (miraculous I'd say) democratic events which couldn't be countermanded without seriously upsetting the applecart. The way that Cameron's Government (I think it was Hague), snivelled after the vote about how 'the Americans have been very good about it', indicates that their clear expectation was that Britain would join the Syrian shitshow, because they said so.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Being too idle to do the research, can anyone help. Let’s assume Brady announces tomorrow that he has enough letters asking for a VONC in the current Tory Party Leader. I understand that such a vote could be as early as Wednesday but what’s the last day it could be held?
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
I think you misunderstood my point.
It was a general comment, rather than in direct response to yours.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
As well as the differential in gap to close of course its outgoing rapist nonce versus twit who watched a booby video. Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
Some qualifiers are needed...you open the door to (a small number of) people (very occasionally) claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
How many innocent people are you prepared to lock up for hate crime, rape, or domestic abuse because you believe someone who isn't being truthful?
Lets not forget here believing people because they say they are victims automatically means taking liberty from others
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Thanks! If you think the Tories can win Wakefield, two points: You can make a killing at the bookies. Secondly, can I interest you in the very reasonable price at which I am selling Brooklyn Bridge?
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Were those the biscuits they were eating at beergate - my favourites and my grandson's
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
But in absolute terms, alone, more Africans were enslaved by Islam than by Western Europeans
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
I think the suggestion is that taking this line is better than immediately assuming something like 'victims are liars'. But I don't agree with either approach. I was just making the point that people always like a simple answer.
No one is suggesting that victims shouldnt be believed enough for an investigation. Where I draw the line is victims should be believed enough to make for a prosecution and guilty verdict on the grounds of someone saying they are a victim
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Comments
Edit: He only needs to get to Wednesday to go past Brown's tenure. To Saturday to beat the Iron Duke.
Aiui OPEC is talking about increased production which might help stabilise prices.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
You may be right but I am a little wary.
There have to be some occasions such terms are appropriate.
https://youtu.be/ES9iNqVQymo
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The conservative party with a new leader has a chance to reset the narrative and actually hold off Starmer and labour at GE24
You only need to see how many on here have vowed to rejoin/support the party once Boris has gone and that could start within the next week
Time for you to get behind removing Boris, and then the new conservative leader and PM ( as you will do in the end anyway)
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace
x
But treachery? They were not Emperor Boris or Empress Thatcher, they serve at the pleasure of the party, they are not owed eternal loyalty even if loyalists would argue they deserve more gratitude.
Whether the party is making a mistake or not by taking those actions is a different matter to it being treacherous.
I also find the seeming praise for Thatcher never forgiving her ousting very interesting. I seem to recall a lot of criticism about her predecessor never forgiving her for ousting him.
Opponents are not going to get behind him just because he wins (he didn't when the same happened to May), but if it is overwhelming would that at least buy him some peace and quiet?
Thatcher won all 3 general elections she fought as leader by contrast
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
But language is important - treachery implies something very morally wrong about an action, far beyond disloyal action.
Put it this way - say Boris is ousted and Hunt takes over as leader (unlikely, but let's suppose). If his supporters then declared it was treachery to go against him (rather than merely disloyal), would that be ok?
If it wouldn't be, why is it ok for Thatcher or Boris to regard attacks on their leadership as treachery?
My piece as Tory MPs depart from the bunting and onto the bloodletting
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/05/tory-mps-spend-jubilee-weekend-placating-angry-voters-boris-johnson?CMP=share_btn_tw
Many Tories believe the threshold is reached or close to being reached. But there is believed to be some traffic in both directions. Some newer MPs are said to be nervous of acting too soon and are considering pushing to delay a confidence vote until after 23 June.
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
My own personal view is that PMs who win general election majorities should be allowed to serve a full term and be judged again by the voters at the next general election not stabbed in the back by their own MPs
Cut prices you may get more people travelling off peak but you won’t replace the lost revenue or get people travelling who work from home. The govt would have to put a large chunk of cash in to fund it.
Buses don’t tend to go to industrial estates either and certainly not at the times of start of morning shift or end of late shift.
It’s a nice idea on paper. It wouldn’t work in practise and would really only benefit those already using buses
Mrs Thatcher was removed due to a combination of a very bad policy - the poll tax - and divisions over Europe.
With Boris it's purely down to his personal failings and a now overwhelming sense that he is unfit to be PM.
The only thing they have in common is the prospect of a terrible election outcome - probably much worse with Boris than Thatcher, because she at least was, personally, held in respect.
Getting rid of Boris will not have the damaging repercussions that removing Mrs T had, because the motive isn't political. There is no band of Boris loyalists to hold the light for him and his policies. No-one is "betraying" him. He's betrayed himself.
Grow a set and be rid of him. You'll feel instant relief.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
No doubt pb.com can answer this.
What is the etymology of HYUFD ?
It looks like a collection of scrabble tiles you are left with near the end of the game.
It needs to be stated - the public does not necessarily resile, per se, from the Conservative Govt. It has a defensible record and the alternative is uninspiring. But it has had it with Boris. And the ship will go down with the captain if he's not removed.
Weird
A PM elected with a majority is not free to behave in a callous, thoughtless, dishonest manner and expect there will not be any consequences and Boris is no exception
@Luckyguy1983 I wasn't actually directly comparing the two (I was comparing America's not-quite-imperialism with a future Chinese version).
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
What is more likely is a situation with multiple powers, and I don't think that Britain has anything to fear from that. As a matter of fact, 'balance of powers' was the overriding aim of British foreign policy for many years.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
Ditching Johnson will still be the right thing to do, even if it's just turning a likely rout into a defeat. But to admit to oneself that it's just about cutting losses... Not an easy step to take emotionally.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
Lets not forget here believing people because they say they are victims automatically means taking liberty from others
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.