Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
Is he an idiot? He got to be a government minister the last time round. Shame about the results, though: as Wiki says: "Carmichael retained his seat at the 2015 general election, the only Liberal Democrat in Scotland out of 11 MPs elected in 2010 who managed to do so. The Liberal Democrats also lost the majority of their seats in the rest of the UK, and Carmichael was one of only eight Liberal Democrat MPs returned to Parliament."
But his, erm, comments on Ms Sturgeon and the French Consul-General had embarrassing results too.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.
Still, it's an odd thing to say - and it doesn't consider *who* replaces the huge doggie.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
Save your money - you don't get that in most state secondary schools these days. And as for "the council can set the agenda" - nonsense. 80% of secondary schools are academies or free schools, where the council has no power whatsoever. And in the remaining 20%, councils don't have any real say. It's not like the LEAs of the 1980s. If state schools are too 'woke', blame the DfE, not the councils.
Yes, true. I'd instinctively expect private schools to be the least woke, followed by those run by academy trusts, followed by those run by councils. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to bear this out.
I’m trying to remember the lady - she wrote a diary of her life at the top of Southern society before, during and after the American Civil War.
According to her, all the young rich Southerners were anti slavery - but still hated the Yankees for the war…
Being anti your own society has been an affection for the rich and posh since Socrates.
I only ever feel guilty for the things I have done or failed to do.
I have absolutely no responsibility for what my ancestors did and am not going to be burdened with responsibility or shame for what they did or make apologies for their actions. This seems to me quite as evil as the way Jews were blamed for being Christ-killers and this used to justify the horrible things done to them throughout the ages. I am certainly interested in what people in the past did and why and in reading as much history as possible from different perspectives.
Interestingly, all 3 of my children have pushed back against agendas that are too obvious or simplistic or pushed at them. While we do not agree on everything, I am delighted to see that they think for themselves and are open to listening to different arguments. One regularly sends me amusing piss-takes of some of the more solemnly pompous articles he reads in the press (the Guardian features prominently as do many at the other end of the political spectrum). They are much more entertaining than the papers themselves.
As for Boris - if his Marie Antoinette tribute act (£150k tree houses for toddlers, for God's sake) doesn't persuade Tory MPs that he's away with the fairies, what will?
Yes. nobody has to apologise, but equally nobody should deny.
Almost. I'd prefer nobody should ignore, since there will be elements still being debated and discussed and not 'denying' could be utilised as a political push. Opinions can still differ, to a degree.
Its history, wherever possible the emotion should be taken out of it. Not always easy, if some effects persist, but emphasis on guilt and mawkish displays of contrition can take the place of actual focus and discussion of the past and how to deal with it.
It's why I'm wary of those doing grand gestures like apologies. Symbols are important sometimes, but when people almost compete over it, not a fan.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
Is he an idiot? He got to be a government minister the last time round. Shame about the results, though: as Wiki says: "Carmichael retained his seat at the 2015 general election, the only Liberal Democrat in Scotland out of 11 MPs elected in 2010 who managed to do so. The Liberal Democrats also lost the majority of their seats in the rest of the UK, and Carmichael was one of only eight Liberal Democrat MPs returned to Parliament."
But his, erm, comments on Ms Sturgeon and the French Consul-General had embarrassing results too.
Yes, he's an idiot. Just as commentators are starting to say that Davey has finally managed to detoxify the LibDem brand in the minds of Labour voters who might vote tactically for his party, this chump comes up and starts saying 'well we might prop up a tory government'.
Davey should sack him immediately if he is one of their front bench spokespeople and tell him to stay on Orkney until the next GE is over.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
Someone misses the coalition days, which I get, but nows not the time Alistair.
Surely this is the necessary eyelash-batting to extract the highest possible price from Labour for Lib Dem support if we end up with a Hung Parliament.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
Someone misses the coalition days, which I get, but nows not the time Alistair.
Surely this is the necessary eyelash-batting to extract the highest possible price from Labour for Lib Dem support if we end up with a Hung Parliament.
"I'll go off with that nice Mr R-M if you don't marry me right now!!"
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Abortion is such a depressingly technical thing to fall out about. What the debate surely comes down to is the point at which the rights of the unborn child outweigh that of the mother. Conception? A heartbeat? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Birth? A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these. But I'd say if you can't see your opponent might also have a legitimate argument you merit no lace in the debate.
Mick Ryan, AM @WarintheFuture · 9h 10/ Ukraine ceding ground in the east as a tactical realignment is not the same as ‘Ukraine is losing the war’, as some have cast the events of the last few weeks. It is simply part of war’s nature, as humans seek to impose their will on each other. War has many twists and turns.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
Someone misses the coalition days, which I get, but nows not the time Alistair.
Surely this is the necessary eyelash-batting to extract the highest possible price from Labour for Lib Dem support if we end up with a Hung Parliament.
Needs to be credible to be a threat. No way the LDs will be ready to contemplate it so soon.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.
Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Abortion is such a depressingly technical thing to fall out about. What the debate surely comes down to is the point at which the rights of the unborn child outweigh that of the mother. Conception? A heartbeat? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Birth? A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these. But I'd say if you can't see your opponent might also have a legitimate argument you merit no lace in the debate.
Your are looking at the issue from the position of science and practicality.
The American debate is (largely) a matter of religion.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
There are already conferences cancelling, the primary reason being the health risk to female delegates, and the likely insurance problems. LIkewise research groups and ther leaders thinking about moving. Add the way things are moving over LGBT and race and things will only get worse.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
It is far too early to say that this will happen. Certainly there are Republicans who hope it will. But much of the Democrat increase in vote in Texas is from the Hispanic community. Who tend to be very, very Catholic.
A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these.
The problem is noone's interested in decent philosophical/medical/sociological cases any more. It's basically "I'm right cos I say I am and you're wrong because I say you are".
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.
Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.
Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
About 3.5% swingback to ungovernable territory, 1% swingback to needing Nat votes...... Although higher LD seats seems very likely. We arent far off total mess territory
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.
Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.
Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.
Maybe liking cruelty to the guilty, but subconsciously understanding slaves had not been guilty of anything?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
About 3.5% swingback to ungovernable territory, 1% swingback to needing Nat votes...... Although higher LD seats seems very likely. We arent far off total mess territory
Total mess would be better than the current administration frankly.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.
Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South' Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
About 3.5% swingback to ungovernable territory, 1% swingback to needing Nat votes...... Although higher LD seats seems very likely. We arent far off total mess territory
Total mess would be better than the current administration frankly.
Mick Ryan, AM @WarintheFuture · 9h 10/ Ukraine ceding ground in the east as a tactical realignment is not the same as ‘Ukraine is losing the war’, as some have cast the events of the last few weeks. It is simply part of war’s nature, as humans seek to impose their will on each other. War has many twists and turns.
If you look at the wider map, Ukraine's advances in the south of the Donbass have actually been greater than the Russians' advances around the eastern Luhansk region. It's not entirely sure why they are doing this as Mariupol is 75km from the nearest units but it's worth keeping an eye on.
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
I agree. As long as they dont get sunk by the economy first. There is no obvious appetite for change of colour, just of personnel
Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action
It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?
I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous
Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.
Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)
It’s not impossible. Conservative, gun-owning Switzerland is notably safe
If a new hyper-conservative ethos in the USA can turn its cities into Geneva and Zurich it would, I suspect, be popular, and people would tolerate the puritan morality
This is of course unlikely but not impossible. At some point America will attempt to do something about its declining cities and rampant crime and all the rest of it - rather than stoking racial resentments which just makes it worse
When you say "gun toting", what do you mean?
Gun owning, sure. But only 2,000 military reservists actually keep ammo to go with their guns. So it's rather misleading to compare gun ownership stats, when 99% of the gun owners don't have any ammunition for their weapons.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
It is far too early to say that this will happen. Certainly there are Republicans who hope it will. But much of the Democrat increase in vote in Texas is from the Hispanic community. Who tend to be very, very Catholic.
Which does get missed in the whole 'this will cost the GOP chorus' It's likely to be more nuanced, particularly if the Squad part of the party (which had been put back in its box to some degree by the reaction against their policies) uses it as an opportunity to reassert control over the Democrat agenda.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
The strange thing is, the private schools apparently have it worse than state schools. My older daughter has just finished her GCSEs at a very good London comp. It’s Wokeness is, so far, quite modest (albeit growing). Ditto my other daughter at another good state school near Sydney, Oz
Contrast that with an experience like ex-PBer Charles, and now you, in the private sector
Are there really enough horribly Woke Viz-style “Modern Parents” to sustain this? The point about private education is that you CAN choose, and I reckon most parents will choose No
The point is too the Ivy League and Oxbridge are ultra woke as are most of the top global universities and they are the entry point to the top professions.
The bigger the corporation also the more Woke it is. The private schools recognise this and are becoming more Woke as the wealthiest parents want their children to learn the values of the new western liberal elite
A hypothesis: rich people who send kids to exclusive schools are more likely to be triggered by woke.
In the capitalism v socialism battle the richer you are the more capitalist you are.
In the culture wars though the fewer qualifications you have the more anti Woke you are
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, recall in 2010 the LDs managed to get Brown to resign as Labour leader on the Monday night.... stringing Labour along and using this as a negotiating tactic with the Conservatives.
If the LD rule out working with the Conservatives on ANY level, what is the point of them? Might as well vote Labour (or Conservative).
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.
Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South' Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo
Which brings us nicely to the Mori 10/10 certain (which as you say should weed out the unlikely to vote respondents whilst on eve of election) and the Opinium 9% lead response tinkered down to three in what they call swingback - do both these methods only account on the headline voting, or tinkered all down in the satisfaction ratings? Because best PM had Boris up there with labour does it have swingback built into that too?
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Its definitely possible! But increasingly improbable the longer this goes on. The Tory brand is getting dirtier and dirtier. Remove the dirt machine and the dirt is still there...
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
Neither side has much appetite for air ops in strength because a) the area is now completely saturated with SAM/MANPADS and b) ever present risk of a blue-on-blue as both sides are operating many of the same types.
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
On topic, it's not enough for voters to vote against something, they actually need something to vote for. If Labour in particular continues to offer very little of substance, then come the next GE, many voters - both Lab and Con - may sit on their hands. I can see the LDs doing very well in Tory Remain seats though.
One wild card for the next GE - and you heard it here first whatever that means - is if the Aspire party goes national. What Tower Hamlets showed is that there is an appetite amongst Labour's SE Asian voting bloc for an alternative to Labour and one, crucially, which is led by someone from their community as opposed to a George Galloway type.
We were supposed to have some friends visit us this week from Switzerland but their flights have been cancelled, stupidly they booked an indirect via Schiphol and 1/5 flights out of there have been cancelled, mostly European ones to save the long haul revenues. Airport operators have really fucked it. Our friends are currently attempting to get the train from Zurich to London.
Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.
All the pilots died and the pb mods are hushing it up, allegedly.
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
Neither side has much appetite for air ops in strength because a) the area is now completely saturated with SAM/MANPADS and b) ever present risk of a blue-on-blue as both sides are operating many of the same types.
Certainly seems that way, which probably suits UKR more at the moment.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.
Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South' Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo
Which brings us nicely to the Mori 10/10 certain (which as you say should weed out the unlikely to vote respondents whilst on eve of election) and the Opinium 9% lead response tinkered down to three in what they call swingback - do both these methods only account on the headline voting, or tinkered all down in the satisfaction ratings? Because best PM had Boris up there with labour does it have swingback built into that too?
I dunno. Redfield only has Starmer a small % ahead.
We were supposed to have some friends visit us this week from Switzerland but their flights have been cancelled, stupidly they booked an indirect via Schiphol and 1/5 flights out of there have been cancelled, mostly European ones to save the long haul revenues. Airport operators have really fucked it. Our friends are currently attempting to get the train from Zurich to London.
Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.
All the pilots died and the pb mods are hushing it up, allegedly.
No, all the pilots are working shifts to keep Leon on his flight oddesey to Point Nemo where he will commence his epic raft journey back to the UK with only a bottle of brandy and a diver's knife that he will use to hunt shark for food....
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
Excellently click-baity Janan Ganesh article where he asks who is more boring and insufferable, the earnest woke humourless @Kinabalu Left or the faux-philistine faux-populist @nooneonhere Right
His conclusion, the Left is even more boring, just about
“Given that I posed the question, I should stop evading the answer. By a whisker, I find the right easier to be around.”
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.
They would be better off remembering Denis Healey: when you're in a hole, stop dugong.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, recall in 2010 the LDs managed to get Brown to resign as Labour leader on the Monday night.... stringing Labour along and using this as a negotiating tactic with the Conservatives.
If the LD rule out working with the Conservatives on ANY level, what is the point of them? Might as well vote Labour (or Conservative).
Different times. The logic makes sense in that ruling out collaboration at all makes little sense, but they are not ready anymore.
They can maximise vote by being a place for soft Tories even if they rule out working together. If the soft Tories are angry.
Brexit is, quite literally, becoming tragic. Recall that Leavers really did proclaim Rees-Mogg to be the intellectual shining light of their movement. Has it really degenerated into the low farce of exploding fizzy-wine bottles? I'm struggling to believe it myself.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
I just don't see what the problem with the SNP would be. Yes, it is likely they would demand a indie ref as the price of coalition but so what? Do we seriously think the Westminster government can hold the line against another vote for another five year parliament? Personally, I don't think so. And the honest truth is Sturgeon wants the vote to be "coming soon' but not actually happen because she knows she would lose it.
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
Neither side has much appetite for air ops in strength because a) the area is now completely saturated with SAM/MANPADS and b) ever present risk of a blue-on-blue as both sides are operating many of the same types.
Saw a film of a Uke Frogfoot on a combat mission. There were great yellow and blue patches painted on the wings. I don't think it was their equivalent of the Red Arrows, so they must be doing it for ID reasons. Like those Black and orange triangles the Israelis painted on their Mirage III and derivatives (Nesher, Dagger?) because some of the Arabs had Mirage III as well.
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.
They would be better off remembering Denis Healey: when you're in a hole, stop dugong.
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.
They would be better off remembering Denis Healey: when you're in a hole, stop dugong.
Steller pun.
I see what you did there, but I was nearly gulled.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!
Quite. Even small ports can have the most astounding linkages. I have been doing some helping with research on slavery and the wider implications (e.g. sugar trade, supplies for the plantations) in Scotland and it was absolutely fascinating digging into the details.
Excellently click-baity Janan Ganesh article where he asks who is more boring and insufferable, the earnest woke humourless @Kinabalu Left or the faux-philistine faux-populist @nooneonhere Right
His conclusion, the Left is even more boring, just about
“Given that I posed the question, I should stop evading the answer. By a whisker, I find the right easier to be around.”
On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Seriously?
Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?
Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.
They would be better off remembering Denis Healey: when you're in a hole, stop dugong.
Steller pun.
I see what you did there, but I was nearly gulled.
Damn - had been trying to work out how to fit in Hydrodamalis gigas but Ishmael (as befits a marine mammal hunter) has got the harpoon in the right spot.
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
Neither side has much appetite for air ops in strength because a) the area is now completely saturated with SAM/MANPADS and b) ever present risk of a blue-on-blue as both sides are operating many of the same types.
IFF must be a nightmare in an environment like that, and it only needs one soldier on the ground to mis-identify you. I think I’d prefer to stay on the ground too, which seems to be the prevailing thought from both sides.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
I just don't see what the problem with the SNP would be. Yes, it is likely they would demand a indie ref as the price of coalition but so what? Do we seriously think the Westminster government can hold the line against another vote for another five year parliament? Personally, I don't think so. And the honest truth is Sturgeon wants the vote to be "coming soon' but not actually happen because she knows she would lose it.
Why don't all those brave Unionists politicians who are obstructing indy ref II with might and main also know it?
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
Parties will say lots of things about alliances before the Election...and then the outcome can change completely once the result is known!
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
I just don't see what the problem with the SNP would be. Yes, it is likely they would demand a indie ref as the price of coalition but so what? Do we seriously think the Westminster government can hold the line against another vote for another five year parliament? Personally, I don't think so. And the honest truth is Sturgeon wants the vote to be "coming soon' but not actually happen because she knows she would lose it.
Why don't all those brave Unionists politicians who are obstructing indy ref II with might and main also know it?
If either think she'd definitely lose theyd be wrong. Too risky from the unionist perspective even if they are more confident than me, anything could happen.
Holding out another parliament seems problematic for many reasons.
It is a bad look. Whatever it was for it seems dodgy to receive in that way. Rich people cannot help themselves
Which is exactly why the likes of al-Thani do it that way. He could have sent a bank transfer, just like everyone else, but watching the future British King accept a bag full of money appeals to his sense of humour.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.
Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.
Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.
Yes, hangings were a great entertainment evern in douce old Edinburgh Not to mention cutting to bits as late as 1820 for those unlucky enough to fall foul of agents provocateurs and dodgy legal cases for the crime of wanting a bit of political progress.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!
Quite. Even small ports can have the most astounding linkages. I have been doing some helping with research on slavery and the wider implications (e.g. sugar trade, supplies for the plantations) in Scotland and it was absolutely fascinating digging into the details.
Whitehaven's slavery museum is excellent. If you come out of there without being affected by it you must not be fully human. The horrors of the slave's existence are all there. It must have been a nightmare to live through.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!
Quite. Even small ports can have the most astounding linkages. I have been doing some helping with research on slavery and the wider implications (e.g. sugar trade, supplies for the plantations) in Scotland and it was absolutely fascinating digging into the details.
It is a bad look. Whatever it was for it seems dodgy to receive in that way. Rich people cannot help themselves
Which is exactly why the likes of al-Thani do it that way. He could have sent a bank transfer, just life everyone else, but watching the future British King accept a bag full of money appeals to his sense of humour.
I hadn't thought of it in those terms but you are probably right. I hope he made Chaz do a little dance or something equally humiliating before he handed over the Lidl bag full of cash.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
He's gone up in my estimation though.
Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all. Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.
Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.
If you have no interest, why all the above comments ? And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ? (I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)
The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.
Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…
I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).
I think it's much more complicated than that.
The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.
Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.
It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.
The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.
The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it
Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward
Lots of nuances...
French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it
The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see
I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!
Quite. Even small ports can have the most astounding linkages. I have been doing some helping with research on slavery and the wider implications (e.g. sugar trade, supplies for the plantations) in Scotland and it was absolutely fascinating digging into the details.
Oh yes, but thanks for checking anyway. Also the Univ of London (? - going from memory) index to those who owned enslaved people, benefited financially, etc. Superb resource.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
Lib dems are an undemocratic London party and in Scotland have a handful of lickspittle no marks only interested in the gravy train. They have no place in Scotland and if they did not get free seats. For losers at Hollywood they would be extinct.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.
But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools
Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right
I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes. You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.
@Cookie. Genuine question - why does this bother you?
I'm asking the question because I'm a teacher in a school which has some similar messaging. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I feel strongly that my own personal views aren't as important as not breaking the trust of parents i.e. it would bother me if these messages go up in schools against parents' will, even if I agree with them personally.
I can't see anything in the examples you raise that is offensive - to me these are messages that help certain individuals feel less excluded from the school culture, without impinging on anyone else. What (genuinely) am I missing in your view?
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
Lib dems are an undemocratic London party and in Scotland have a handful of lickspittle no marks only interested in the gravy train. They have no place in Scotland and if they did not get free seats. For losers at Hollywood they would be extinct.
It is a bad look. Whatever it was for it seems dodgy to receive in that way. Rich people cannot help themselves
Which is exactly why the likes of al-Thani do it that way. He could have sent a bank transfer, just life everyone else, but watching the future British King accept a bag full of money appeals to his sense of humour.
I hadn't thought of it in those terms but you are probably right. I hope he made Chaz do a little dance or something equally humiliating before he handed over the Lidl bag full of cash.
Arab culture is very much what in the UK we would call “New Money”. They like to be seen spending money, and bank transfers don’t show off the wealth properly. People still buy cars with cash out here.
Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles
The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.
Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.
I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure. Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.
Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.
My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it
Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.
He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades
My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)
But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad
So, you're objecting to the fact that a British history class focuses on the actions of the British?
This isn't fair I don't think. In my reading @Leon's objection is to the lack of context. The Atlantic slave trade is no less repulsive if compared to other slave trades, but if this is seen as a global moral problem not an exclusively European one we can make different, better conclusions as to what to learn from that period of our history.
I know little about the Islamic trade in slaves, but @Leon's comments are prompting me to try to find out.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher 👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes
At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
Lib dems are an undemocratic London party and in Scotland have a handful of lickspittle no marks only interested in the gravy train. They have no place in Scotland and if they did not get free seats. For losers at Hollywood they would be extinct.
And the Conservative Party....?
Cheeks of the same arse. Though Tories are the worst for sure.
I’m not sure he has lost it, but only because I’m not convinced he ever had it to start with.
Parnell, one of his biographers, in the Guardian:
There have always been flashes of instability – the frothing temper, the bizarre shrieking when under pressure – but as a narcissist these traits only get worse when he is cornered as he is now. I remember friends of Johnson telling me just before he became prime minister that there was concern in the family that he was simply not sufficiently mentally stable to cope with the relentless pressures and problems of running a country.
Decades of indulgence, exceptionalism, and lack of consequence programmed him to behave in a selfish and reckless way. Imagine how he feels now that the scandals keep coming in, fully knowing there are many more, potentially even worse, to come out.
Now the economy is tanking, the health service is in crisis, and the country gripped by strikes and the slogans are falling flat. He has no clue what to do next. He never gave much thought to being prime minister (only the becoming of PM) and virtually none at all to the afterwards except the idea of getting very rich.
There have been virtually no boundaries imposed on Johnsonian conduct (by employers, party, or cabinet) but just as with children – and there is truly something of the toddler about Johnson – that does not necessarily lead to happiness. There is a hollowness in Johnson that blocks out those things in life that normally buoy us through trouble – the love of family or friends or place.
With reality at the age of 58 finally closing in on him, his one old trick of joking around will no longer do. As even people who voted for him with delight and pride now try to deny it, he is no doubt desperately trying to find another gamble with an eye-catching announcement that might buy him more time. Otherwise, he knows too well that there is only one button left in his toybox, the one marked self-destruct. He would rather not go out on a whimper but a very big bang.
That's very badly written for a biographer.
Why, what's wrong with it?
Overall there is a paucity of commas. The use of formal, bordering on pretentious words like 'exceptionalism' jarrs with slang like 'the economy is tanking' and 'he has no clue'. There are some really clunky phrases that don't make sense in English - 'the becoming of PM' - he means the acheivement or the process of becoming PM. 'Fully knowing' - should be 'knowing full well' or 'in the full knowledge that'. 'lack of consequence' should be 'lack of consequences' - 'consequence' singular has a different meaning; it means 'importance' or similar. The mixed metaphor of the toy box was sloppy - toy boxes don't have self destruct buttons, or any other buttons, in them. The dashboard of Johnson's clown car might have worked a bit better.
Over all, the lack of evidentiary support for his claims about Johnson, combined with his obvious dislike of the man, make his piece feel like more of an extended rant rather than any form of serious analysis (and I say that as no particular fan of Johnson). He may be absolutely right, but he should have made less points and made them better.
'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters
Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere
Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.
Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.
Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun Lab 39% 311 seats Con 33% 249 Lib Dem 12% 16 Green 5% 1 Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6
The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.
Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South' Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo
Which brings us nicely to the Mori 10/10 certain (which as you say should weed out the unlikely to vote respondents whilst on eve of election) and the Opinium 9% lead response tinkered down to three in what they call swingback - do both these methods only account on the headline voting, or tinkered all down in the satisfaction ratings? Because best PM had Boris up there with labour does it have swingback built into that too?
I dunno. Redfield only has Starmer a small % ahead.
I think Mike Smithson posted it’s not often Loto get much lead as it’s rating that favours incumbent. HY too stands up for Starmer saying logo’s don’t often get a long lead in this one.
On topic: It is possible if the Tories ditch Johnson (but will they? believe it when I see it) that they'll somehow escape the price they ought rightfully to pay for the crime of foisting him upon us - but I'm in a better place with the British people now, we're just about reconciled, and I really do think they have the nous to prevent such a gross miscarriage of justice.
'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters
Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere
Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.
Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.
Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.
'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters
Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere
Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.
Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.
Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.
'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters
Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere
Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.
Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.
Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.
The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states
People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people
Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife
Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
It is far too early to say that this will happen. Certainly there are Republicans who hope it will. But much of the Democrat increase in vote in Texas is from the Hispanic community. Who tend to be very, very Catholic.
Are they really? Or is this just lazy thinking? When I ask Hispanic friends about this, the usual reply is that they were baptised into the Catholic church, but after that they have not gone anywhere near it, except for social events.
Comments
"Carmichael retained his seat at the 2015 general election, the only Liberal Democrat in Scotland out of 11 MPs elected in 2010 who managed to do so. The Liberal Democrats also lost the majority of their seats in the rest of the UK, and Carmichael was one of only eight Liberal Democrat MPs returned to Parliament."
But his, erm, comments on Ms Sturgeon and the French Consul-General had embarrassing results too.
According to her, all the young rich Southerners were anti slavery - but still hated the Yankees for the war…
Being anti your own society has been an affection for the rich and posh since Socrates.
Its history, wherever possible the emotion should be taken out of it. Not always easy, if some effects persist, but emphasis on guilt and mawkish displays of contrition can take the place of actual focus and discussion of the past and how to deal with it.
It's why I'm wary of those doing grand gestures like apologies. Symbols are important sometimes, but when people almost compete over it, not a fan.
Davey should sack him immediately if he is one of their front bench spokespeople and tell him to stay on Orkney until the next GE is over.
What the debate surely comes down to is the point at which the rights of the unborn child outweigh that of the mother. Conception? A heartbeat? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Birth? A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these.
But I'd say if you can't see your opponent might also have a legitimate argument you merit no lace in the debate.
Mick Ryan, AM
@WarintheFuture
·
9h
10/ Ukraine ceding ground in the east as a tactical realignment is not the same as ‘Ukraine is losing the war’, as some have cast the events of the last few weeks. It is simply part of war’s nature, as humans seek to impose their will on each other. War has many twists and turns.
https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1540870456542400512
I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/slavery/slavery-freedom-or-perpetual-servitude-the-joseph-knight-case
The American debate is (largely) a matter of religion.
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Knight_(novel)
Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.
Although higher LD seats seems very likely.
We arent far off total mess territory
After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?
And my 27th straight check-in to a new hotel/guest house/self catering job
I claim an unofficial PB record
Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10953305/TOM-BOWER-Prince-Charles-jeopardised-reign-Del-Boy-esque-bags-stuffed-money.html
Replacing Boris could be enough.
Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.
There is no obvious appetite for change of colour, just of personnel
Gun owning, sure. But only 2,000 military reservists actually keep ammo to go with their guns. So it's rather misleading to compare gun ownership stats, when 99% of the gun owners don't have any ammunition for their weapons.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#:~:text=Only 2,000 specialist militia members,the event of an emergency.
In the culture wars though the fewer qualifications you have the more anti Woke you are
If the LD rule out working with the Conservatives on ANY level, what is the point of them? Might as well vote Labour (or Conservative).
One wild card for the next GE - and you heard it here first whatever that means - is if the Aspire party goes national. What Tower Hamlets showed is that there is an appetite amongst Labour's SE Asian voting bloc for an alternative to Labour and one, crucially, which is led by someone from their community as opposed to a George Galloway type.
It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.
Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.
There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.
Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.
After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.
They can maximise vote by being a place for soft Tories even if they rule out working together. If the soft Tories are angry.
Can't challenge the hotel record.
Holding out another parliament seems problematic for many reasons.
I'm asking the question because I'm a teacher in a school which has some similar messaging. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I feel strongly that my own personal views aren't as important as not breaking the trust of parents i.e. it would bother me if these messages go up in schools against parents' will, even if I agree with them personally.
I can't see anything in the examples you raise that is offensive - to me these are messages that help certain individuals feel less excluded from the school culture, without impinging on anyone else. What (genuinely) am I missing in your view?
Laters!
I know little about the Islamic trade in slaves, but @Leon's comments are prompting me to try to find out.
Over all, the lack of evidentiary support for his claims about Johnson, combined with his obvious dislike of the man, make his piece feel like more of an extended rant rather than any form of serious analysis (and I say that as no particular fan of Johnson). He may be absolutely right, but he should have made less points and made them better.
'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters
Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere
Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.
Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.
Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy-to-let/dont-know-how-support-family-landlords-retirement-dreams-tatters/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1656243042
Seriously, selling his 30 homes and has no idea what he will do with his money?
If he sells 30 BTL's, he won't be down the food bank in short order will he?
It’s a business model that only works with interest rates on the floor.
He’s likely still got a million in cash though, which is easy enough to make 5% from more traditional investments for a decent retirement income.