I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
Good morning
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
Oops. Sorry to have overestimated your age.
Hope you and the family are well.
Thank you, both my wife and I are recovering from a second bout of a dreadful coughing bug (non covid)
2024 is a big year for us as being a leap year baby I have my 80th on the 29th Feb and our diamond wedding on the 16th May so very keen to keep taking our pills !!!!
Best of luck! Will the King send you a message, has the queen did for us. Eldest grandson had to ask for it though!
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
Born 1990. I cannot bear the thought of a party leader being younger than me.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
I think the problem is she could be a very competent First Minister, but that is not what the Zoomers want in a party leader.
Yes, it is a challenge. Whoever is leader of the SNP is in charge of an extremely broad coalition which doesn't agree on much except independence. Which is fine as long as that is the focus but a bit more awkward when you are trying to run an administration. Salmond kept the SNP just to the right of centre which made life pretty hellish for the Conservative party and gave the SNP a lot of NE and rural seats. Sturgeon made them much more of a centre left party which allowed her to seize the main prize of the central belt from Labour but allowed a modest Tory recovery. Where do the SNP go next?
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
Born 1990. I cannot bear the thought of a party leader being younger than me.
Rishi Sunak did that for a lot of us. (Although technically it was Jo Swinson)
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
Born 1990. I cannot bear the thought of a party leader being younger than me.
I still think of Nicola Sturgeon as a youngster, which says more about me than it does her. 😄
She’s only 52 for crying out loud. She has totally free hands now and can do what the hell she likes. Good on her!
If I was her I’d leave public life behind, but I’ve known her since she was 16, and in my heart of hearts I know that she just cannot/will not do that. Her first passion wasn’t independence but the campaign against nuclear weapons (it was that which led her to support independence). I can see her taking some sort of roll in an international organisation, eg ICAN.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
Lol. Openly Anglophobe racist nationalist calls HYUFD of having "violent fascist fantasies". I have seen a lot of psychological projection on here, but that has to be one of the best examples.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
Lol. Openly Anglophobe racist nationalist calls HYUFD of having "violent fascist fantasies". I have seen a lot of psychological projection on here, but that has to be one of the best examples.
Err, I take it that is not really addressed to me?
Mr. Dickson, the Sicarii and Zealots were not necessarily groups that helped out their own cause.
Recently read a trilogy on the Seleukid Empire, and it seems ropey rebellions were quite the tradition for the Jews by the time the Romans took over.
Aha, that old British imperialist attribute: blame the slaughtered for the slaughter. The buggers had it coming.
British imperialism was enthusiastically engaged with by Scots, proportionately more than the English. Keep making a fool of yourself @StuartDickson, no doubt your lot have metaphorically burned all the books that refer to this, or perhaps like most nationalists you are supremely ignorant of actual history
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
I find it very hard to see anybody else in the roll. Angus is also a lovely, caring person, and a real team player. He’s maybe a tad boring, but hey, we’re not looking for a comedian. That didn’t work out too well for the English.
SKS making his appeal to to Scotland via that beacon of progressiveness the Scottish Sun.
His crib sheet so far:
Slag off the Sun when in Liverpool Dial down the UJs in Scotland More flegs everywhere else Go on about crushing antisemitism in the Labour at every opportunity, except that 2015-2019 period Be intensely comfortable with big business DON'T MENTION INDUSTRIAL ACTION DON'T MENTION BREXIT
Two Aussie wickets in quick succession. A good evening session again for India. We’ll likely see them batting at the end of the day, which might un-nerve the openers.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
The Tory grand strategy for the next general election: Get a load of willies and fannies to witter on about willies and fannies.
Those Tufton Street gophers are worth their weight in gold. Golden showers.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
Lol. Openly Anglophobe racist nationalist calls HYUFD of having "violent fascist fantasies". I have seen a lot of psychological projection on here, but that has to be one of the best examples.
Err, I take it that is not really addressed to me?
No, apols it was the for the only racist I am aware of who posts on here who posted on another thread. Problem of posting while in a hurry to go somewhere else!
Couldn't resist coming on for a few minutes to laugh at the turmoil of the Scottish Nasty Party
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
Yes. The 60s and 70s are an intriguing period for me, born in late 75. Even the early 80s, where my memories are rather hazy. I would love to go back in time, see the Beatles at the Cavern, the Stones at the Marquee, ride up the ECML behind a Deltic.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Indeed. Starmer had better have a totally nailed-down answer to the question “What is a woman?” before any televised hustings or debates.
The social issues are not massive swingers of votes between parties, but they do affect turnout. See the Democrat over-performance in the US mid-terms, which was attributed to socially liberal women turning out. Starmer, as with Blair in 1997, needs 2019 Tories to stay at home and not be afraid of him, as they were of Corbyn.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
Kate Forbes is a member of a church which is anti homosexual marriage, she has spoken at anti abortion events, she opposed the Gender Recognition Bill. She certainly is far more socially conservative than even Boris and Sunak and Ross, let alone Starmer, Sarwar and Davey
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
I find it very hard to see anybody else in the roll. Angus is also a lovely, caring person, and a real team player. He’s maybe a tad boring, but hey, we’re not looking for a comedian. That didn’t work out too well for the English.
Boris Johnson was a joke, but you had a joke that was referred to as a bully and sex pest by his own QC and then also referred to similarly by his successor. But, hey, hypocrisy is a requirement to be a nationalist bigot such as yourself eh?
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
But if your mortgage is paid off and you’re comfortably retired but feeling nostalgic for real binmen, then maybe it resonates. That’s the target market, and there are lots of them.
The mistake is assuming they want working age people to vote for them.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
Lol. Openly Anglophobe racist nationalist calls HYUFD of having "violent fascist fantasies". I have seen a lot of psychological projection on here, but that has to be one of the best examples.
Err, I take it that is not really addressed to me?
No, apols it was the for the only racist I am aware of who posts on here who posted on another thread. Problem of posting while in a hurry to go somewhere else!
Couldn't resist coming on for a few minutes to laugh at the turmoil of the Scottish Nasty Party
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
Lol. Openly Anglophobe racist nationalist calls HYUFD of having "violent fascist fantasies". I have seen a lot of psychological projection on here, but that has to be one of the best examples.
Err, I take it that is not really addressed to me?
No, apols it was the for the only racist I am aware of who posts on here who posted on another thread. Problem of posting while in a hurry to go somewhere else!
Couldn't resist coming on for a few minutes to laugh at the turmoil of the Scottish Nasty Party
Ross's outfit? Are they in turmoil?
If not, something strange and dramatic has happened to them.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
It's only 1 month and Christmas was pretty terrible for retailers this year with most worrying about their gas bills but a 0.5% increase in retail sales suggests to me that this predicted recession may well turn out not to be such at all. We will have the odd quarter fall, of course, and the odd rise but flat as a pancake looks more likely to me.
There's an interesting point I'm seeing about the Greens in Scotland. What if they try to rock the boat or pull to get more influence?
Why shouldn’t they? They are politicians like any other. It is their prerogative to try to make the best out of any given situation. It’s what led them to overtake the Scottish Liberal Democrats. They are good at their job.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
More usually, in my experience, they admit the problem privately, fire the staff and go for a coverup which they usually end up bungling.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
I find it very hard to see anybody else in the roll. Angus is also a lovely, caring person, and a real team player. He’s maybe a tad boring, but hey, we’re not looking for a comedian. That didn’t work out too well for the English.
Boris Johnson was a joke, but you had a joke that was referred to as a bully and sex pest by his own QC and then also referred to similarly by his successor. But, hey, hypocrisy is a requirement to be a nationalist bigot such as yourself eh?
Salmond was a great many things, including a bully, a sex pest, a bit of a charlatan and could be clownish when he chose, but I have never heard him referred to as a joke before.
The political situation is something I usually studiously avoid with my Scottish colleagues but it’s inevitably come up in recent conversations.
Most are what I’d describe as soft unionists or undecideds, very much of the “don’t do anything to disrupt business” fraternity as opposed to throw bottles at Rangers matches type (they are pretty much all remainers).
While there seems to be a feeling the SNP has peaked, there’s also a strong hint of tactical unwind. A few who would have voted Tory to keep out the nationalists last time wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole now. Much more support for Labour than I recall in the recent past.
If that’s the case across the nation then I could see the Tories going badly backwards, Labour gaining a bit, and the SNP advancing in seats at the next GE even if the vote share goes down.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
More usually, in my experience, they admit the problem privately, fire the staff and go for a coverup which they usually end up bungling.
True. It takes a fairly special kind of management to admit they've cocked up, essentially and to be willing to make necessary changes.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
Yeah, but I'm still not expecting a major focus on it - some targeted ads of him kneeling in support of the BLM campaign with the slogan "is he really on your side?", perhaps - and, if he can't answer the "what is a woman?" question a few off-hand dismissals of "how can he sort complicated problems when he doesn't even know what a woman is".
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
As a Green (E&W flavour) myself, I tend to agree with the broader point; there is not enough focus on environmental issues and a bit too much flirting with disenchanted Momentum types (to my mind - speaking as someone who is probably a socialist - the Green movement ought to be a broad church). FWIWI in my lay knowledge in the England and Wales party there is no 'obsession' with trans at all.
In absolute fairness though, it is sometimes about political expedience, especially at the locals - there isn't always a burning local green issue to focus on, so it helps to have an ideological hinterland to campaign on and establish a base, and they're striking a chord in places like Bristol, Sheffield and Stockport.
It was a significant issue among E&W Greens during the last leadership election, and I know senior Green figures who said they would quit the party if a certain candidate was elected, because of his views on trans rights. He didn't get close to winning, so they relaxed.
To a much greater extent than Labour or the LibDems, the Greens really are invested in culture war stuff, and ready to take on the Tories over it. That appeals to a chunk of young people who aren't that interested in classic left-wing themes (tax more to fund the NHS, support trade unions, build more social housing, etc.). It doesn't work well in areas like the Red Wall where cost of living issues are more pressing.
Very much creatures of habit the Putin regime. I wonder what led to the switch from poisoning to defenestration as the preferred means of accidental death. Greater success rate?
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
I think that you are probably right. Which leaves Angus Robertson very much in pole position.
I find it very hard to see anybody else in the roll. Angus is also a lovely, caring person, and a real team player. He’s maybe a tad boring, but hey, we’re not looking for a comedian. That didn’t work out too well for the English.
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
As a Green (E&W flavour) myself, I tend to agree with the broader point; there is not enough focus on environmental issues and a bit too much flirting with disenchanted Momentum types (to my mind - speaking as someone who is probably a socialist - the Green movement ought to be a broad church). FWIWI in my lay knowledge in the England and Wales party there is no 'obsession' with trans at all.
In absolute fairness though, it is sometimes about political expedience, especially at the locals - there isn't always a burning local green issue to focus on, so it helps to have an ideological hinterland to campaign on and establish a base, and they're striking a chord in places like Bristol, Sheffield and Stockport.
It was a significant issue among E&W Greens during the last leadership election, and I know senior Green figures who said they would quit the party if a certain candidate was elected, because of his views on trans rights. He didn't get close to winning, so they relaxed.
To a much greater extent than Labour or the LibDems, the Greens really are invested in culture war stuff, and ready to take on the Tories over it. That appeals to a chunk of young people who aren't that interested in classic left-wing themes (tax more to fund the NHS, support trade unions, build more social housing, etc.). It doesn't work well in areas like the Red Wall where cost of living issues are more pressing.
The greens are another odd product of FPTP. In a proportional system I would expect them to break off and re-form, with an environmentalist, localist and broadly social democratic wing joining with the left of the Lib Dems and the culture war watermelon tendency uniting with a Melenchon style l’Angleterre insoumise party.
The realignments post a move to PR would be fascinating.
Very much creatures of habit the Putin regime. I wonder what led to the switch from poisoning to defenestration as the preferred means of accidental death. Greater success rate?
The poisoning is just for the foreign dissidents, used as a calling card to the world. It’s really expensive and difficult to pull off though.
(A shout out to the Litvinenko docu-drama, by the way. Very good television.)
A couple of men in black throwing someone out of the window, on the other hand, is much easier to organise, and everyone locally knows what it means for them if they step out of line.
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
When I talked to him about it, I didn’t ask him about Philip Larkin. Possibly because his father was there. I did though ask him about the effect of the end of national service, and he said he didn’t mention it. Personally, I thought it had an enormous effect on the music industry, having been around at the time. He said he got a good mark for it though!
I found some ephemera from my student days - college magazines, drematic soc play programmes, college admin bumf - in a clearout the other day and asked the archivist if they were any good for their collection: very much so, and just received by them. Slightly disconcerting to have one's everyday life as a student carefully preserved amidst mediaeval manuscripts and Victorian correspondence.
Making history isn’t just the preserve of the great.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
Should @theSNP continue to seek to make progress through a short-term event like a de facto referendum election, or pivot to a more evolutionary process of delivering further constitutional change, working with others to build consensus and move forward?
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
The question is, how many of the “squeezed but coping” blame the government directly, and how many blame external factors such as war and pandemic?
The polls are your friend! They have been squeezed for a long time - the "squeezed middle" was a battleground in the 2015 election. Difficult to try and blame it on Putin / Covid when it pre-dates those things. People aren't as stupid as the Tory MPs parroting that argument.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
We had an import of this kind of American fun at one startup I worked at.
A new joiner (American) announced a “petition” and demanded people sign it. A lengthy screed with a range of political positions that the signer was supposed to agree with. More of a loyalty oath than a petition
When people ignored this or refused to sign, she complained of a toxic workplace.
The witch finder was strong with that one. Included in the complaints
Mr. Dickson, the Sicarii and Zealots were not necessarily groups that helped out their own cause.
Recently read a trilogy on the Seleukid Empire, and it seems ropey rebellions were quite the tradition for the Jews by the time the Romans took over.
Aha, that old British imperialist attribute: blame the slaughtered for the slaughter. The buggers had it coming.
British imperialism was enthusiastically engaged with by Scots, proportionately more than the English. Keep making a fool of yourself @StuartDickson, no doubt your lot have metaphorically burned all the books that refer to this, or perhaps like most nationalists you are supremely ignorant of actual history
You are obviously ignorant of the very active debate in Scotland in the last three decades.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
You're arguing that journalists should be allowed by their employer to publicly express there own opinions ? You're entitled to the opinion; I think it's nuts.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
I sometimes get the impression that Sammy & Co want that thing everyone is supposed not to want - a 'hard border on the island of Ireland'.
Of course they do. That was the whole point of Brexit for them, to expect a barrier with the Republic to stave off the threat of cross-border unity.
So they're desperate for there to be no deal on the protocol so that the Republic is forced into the position of erecting a border to protect the single market, or of de facto leaving the single market to remain in a common economic zone with Northern Ireland.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
That's not what I was arguing about. I acknowledged that preventing attacks on colleagues is well within management's purview; Max was arguing they should also be able to ban the public expression of opinions by their workers.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
I sometimes get the impression that Sammy & Co want that thing everyone is supposed not to want - a 'hard border on the island of Ireland'.
Of course they do. That was the whole point of Brexit for them, to expect a barrier with the Republic to stave off the threat of cross-border unity.
So they're desperate for there to be no deal on the protocol so that the Republic is forced into the position of erecting a border to protect the single market, or of de facto leaving the single market to remain in a common economic zone with Northern Ireland.
In other words, UK Brexit policy is supposed to remain (sorry) in chaos because it is what keeps the DUP happy? And screw the rest of us, including a large chunk of the inhabitants of NI who evidently don't count either?
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
You're arguing that journalists should be allowed by their employer to publicly express there own opinions ? You're entitled to the opinion; I think it's nuts.
There’s a difference between expressing different views and saying that everyone who doesn't espouse theology x is evil, should be shunned or fired.
New MRP: we've mapped our cost of living segmentation groups across constituencies
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5 Squeezed but Coping: 396 Unsettled Withstanders: 13 Calm and Comfortable: 89
The question is, how many of the “squeezed but coping” blame the government directly, and how many blame external factors such as war and pandemic?
Most seem to be blaming the government.
The Tories will have been in power for 14 years by the time of the next election - any attempt to pin the blame Labour for the woes voters have won't wash.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
More than possible - it's inevitable that stage will be reached at some point. The Tories' job is to make sure they're in a position to take advantage of it when it happens.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
That's not what I was arguing about. I acknowledged that preventing attacks on colleagues is well within management's purview; Max was arguing they should also be able to ban the public expression of opinions by their workers.
If an opinion is expressed as a private individual then certainly they should be able to express it. The problem comes when the individual is publiclly associated with a company and many will assume the expression represents the company.
The first should always be allowable, the second the company has a right to step in. I post as Pagan2 for example so people can't associate any opinion expressed with a company I work for. This is why demands we deanonymise identity and we have to post under our own names is so stifling of debate.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
I don't have a problem with workers going public (as long as they have first tried to report concerns internally). But I do agree that the management then have essentially two options*, either admit the concerns are justified and make changes to address them or sack those who have publicly complained. Otherwise you have an organisation at war with itself.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
That's not what I was arguing about. I acknowledged that preventing attacks on colleagues is well within management's purview; Max was arguing they should also be able to ban the public expression of opinions by their workers.
I have worked in places where it's explicit in the contract that you don't express public opinions that are contrary to the organisation's policies.
I chose, for a variety of reasons, to leave and now have a job where I am permitted to express such opinions.
It depends on the circumstances. One of the places I worked with restrictions was (an exceuitve agency of the) civil service and I can appreciate that there is a need for workers there not to publicly question the policies they are supposed to be enacting, as that undermines confidence in what they are doing. There are other places where it seems less appropriate - media being one, where differences of opinion should be possible, and academia being another obvious example.
Where expressing opinions is forbidden, there should be a clear rationale as to why that harms the organisation or the work of the organisation.
Mr. Dickson, the Sicarii and Zealots were not necessarily groups that helped out their own cause.
Recently read a trilogy on the Seleukid Empire, and it seems ropey rebellions were quite the tradition for the Jews by the time the Romans took over.
Aha, that old British imperialist attribute: blame the slaughtered for the slaughter. The buggers had it coming.
British imperialism was enthusiastically engaged with by Scots, proportionately more than the English. Keep making a fool of yourself @StuartDickson, no doubt your lot have metaphorically burned all the books that refer to this, or perhaps like most nationalists you are supremely ignorant of actual history
You are obviously ignorant of the very active debate in Scotland in the last three decades.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
You're arguing that journalists should be allowed by their employer to publicly express there own opinions ? You're entitled to the opinion; I think it's nuts.
The point is that they aren't being prevented from expressing their views on gender or anything of substance, it's the process issue that they are bitching about and they absolutely shouldn't be doing that publicly. The process of the Times is a purely internal matter and not up for public debate. You agree with it or you get out. Their opinion on internal company processes can be made internally to management.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
More than possible - it's inevitable that stage will be reached at some point. The Tories' job is to make sure they're in a position to take advantage of it when it happens.
Yep, but it can take a decade or more and, even then, winning requires a party that doesn't horrify too much of the population. I'm not sure we'd be heading for a Labour government if Corbyn was still in charge, for example.
It's likely that the Tories have, as in late 90s/early 00s plenty of time in the wilderness to talk to themselves before they're ready to talk to the country again. But perhaps they could accelerate things being ready for the next* election
*after the one they're going to lose in the next couple of years
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
I sometimes get the impression that Sammy & Co want that thing everyone is supposed not to want - a 'hard border on the island of Ireland'.
Of course they do. That was the whole point of Brexit for them, to expect a barrier with the Republic to stave off the threat of cross-border unity.
So they're desperate for there to be no deal on the protocol so that the Republic is forced into the position of erecting a border to protect the single market, or of de facto leaving the single market to remain in a common economic zone with Northern Ireland.
In other words, UK Brexit policy is supposed to remain (sorry) in chaos because it is what keeps the DUP happy? And screw the rest of us, including a large chunk of the inhabitants of NI who evidently don't count either?
I didn't say the DUP position was reasonable!
The best chance of restoring Stormont would seem to be a deal on the protocol, supported by the UUP and Unionist voters at new Assembly elections. Unfortunately, it looks like Unionist voters are driving this more than the DUP leadership. Given power-sharing, unless Unionist voters can be persuaded there will be deadlock. That's the whole principle of power-sharing.
Someone needs to either convince those voters to support a compromise, or find a compromise they can support. That's democracy for you. No-one said it was easy. It struggles if a large enough group are unwilling to compromise.
Perhaps a degree of patience, of implementing a new deal, so that people can see it doesn't do what they fear, will have to be one element of persuasion. But Northern Ireland could do with a government to get on with things.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
No it isn't, it's the same as being in Cabinet, you sell the agreed position or you go to the back benches. You can spend all the time you need in private expressing your own opinion or view to management but once managers have made the call you have to get on board with it, even if you don't agree. Anyone who feels strongly enough has the option of leaving, there really is no room for split loyalties in companies, it creates a completely toxic atmosphere and having been at companies where this happened it can lead to a really awful vicious cycle which ends in open warfare between the two camps.
You're arguing that journalists should be allowed by their employer to publicly express there own opinions ? You're entitled to the opinion; I think it's nuts.
When I worked in the public sector we had to be very careful on what we said in newspapers, etc. that pertained to our agency's purview - it was streng verboten to comment on the agency's doings, such as policies, unless it was part of an agreed approach through the media office. That would most certainly include admin stuff such as HR policies, or attacking colleagues. There was an exception for professional journals and (say) a paper on the problems experienced with implementign policy would be OK but it was always a good idea to trot it past one's line manager if any of it touched on the agency's doings, to cover one's backside. Likewise if one was asked to give a public lecture on the agency's work or subject area. All that was good common sense. Would be just the same for a widget manufacturer.
Several of the worst rows I ever saw, real relationship- and department-wreckers, came when people ignored that and just went ahead. Idiots.
But the problem I have is that for a newspaper is that *everything* comes under its purview. In theory journos are supposed not to be biased - at least on the BBC, for instance. Yet everyone knows commercial newspapers and state broadcasters have their position. Suppose a DT journo moonlights with an article in the Graun attacking the Tories and saying the SNP or Labour or whoever are great. What happens then?
But because Starmer stayed on the inside, he could reform Labour. I quote the German poet, Hans Magnus Enzenberger's praise for the “heroes of the retreat”. The communist, Apartheid and Francoist politicians, who knew the game was up and took their countries to a better future
Labour has only ever been changed because people have been prepared to serve with people they did not agree with, in order to deliver change later on. Starmer has the same ability and drive to do this as Attlee, Wilson and Blair.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
I sometimes get the impression that Sammy & Co want that thing everyone is supposed not to want - a 'hard border on the island of Ireland'.
Of course they do. That was the whole point of Brexit for them, to expect a barrier with the Republic to stave off the threat of cross-border unity.
So they're desperate for there to be no deal on the protocol so that the Republic is forced into the position of erecting a border to protect the single market, or of de facto leaving the single market to remain in a common economic zone with Northern Ireland.
In other words, UK Brexit policy is supposed to remain (sorry) in chaos because it is what keeps the DUP happy? And screw the rest of us, including a large chunk of the inhabitants of NI who evidently don't count either?
I didn't say the DUP position was reasonable!
The best chance of restoring Stormont would seem to be a deal on the protocol, supported by the UUP and Unionist voters at new Assembly elections. Unfortunately, it looks like Unionist voters are driving this more than the DUP leadership. Given power-sharing, unless Unionist voters can be persuaded there will be deadlock. That's the whole principle of power-sharing.
Someone needs to either convince those voters to support a compromise, or find a compromise they can support. That's democracy for you. No-one said it was easy. It struggles if a large enough group are unwilling to compromise.
Perhaps a degree of patience, of implementing a new deal, so that people can see it doesn't do what they fear, will have to be one element of persuasion. But Northern Ireland could do with a government to get on with things.
Part of the problem is the perception in Unionism that the Northern Ireland Peace process became “appease SF at all costs”
Because of the threat of violence. Even at a few steps removed - “there will be a problem with dissidents unless you give us X”
All good here, thanks. Except I'm battling some poorly commented incoherent code written a couple of years back in a rush by some idiot* trying to meet a deadline. Might have been better to just rewrite it from scratch.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
More than possible - it's inevitable that stage will be reached at some point. The Tories' job is to make sure they're in a position to take advantage of it when it happens.
That's why the candidate selection and staffing of the Conservative ecosystem are so important now. Dave and George both entered Parliament in 2001, but they were SpAds in the Major government.
If the talents to pull the Conservatives back after a likely 2024 defeat are there, I'd expect them to be around, hiding in plain sight, now. Anyone know who we should be keeping an eye on? Or has 2010-now scared off the centre right whizzkids as well as the centre right dads?
I know this is just a sub sample and we are not allowed to think about sub samples so generally I don’t - but is that quite unusual in a Scottish sub sample? The SNP down to 2nd?
The first actual Scottish poll following the End of the Sturgeon will be fascinating
I know this is just a sub sample and we are not allowed to think about sub samples so generally I don’t - but is that quite unusual in a Scottish sub sample? The SNP down to 2nd?
The first actual Scottish poll following the End of the Sturgeon will be fascinating
Is it possible that LAB will return to near pre 2015 seat levels in Scotland at the next GE? Maybe 30+???
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
But if your mortgage is paid off and you’re comfortably retired but feeling nostalgic for real binmen, then maybe it resonates. That’s the target market, and there are lots of them.
The mistake is assuming they want working age people to vote for them.
I think their core vote is now comfortably retired people who don't follow the news closely. I know quite a few people who are very well off - their mortgages are a distant memory - but saw Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as repellent (they didn't like Corbyn either). They aren't nearly as worried by Sunak, but the culture war stuff actually puts them off. They are mostly ex-Con tactical voters, not too bothered if the main challenger is LD or Lab. A moderate Tory party could well recover their support.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
That is true. But if they go on their record, or economic difference, or (lol) competence, there's a big downside risk of leaking to the right, losing lots of Boris/Brexit voters, still getting hammered in the floating middle, and really sinking to a terrible result, the sort that could trash the brand entirely (in electoral terms) and make some sort of gamechanging realignment a possibility. I think they'll seek to take that outcome out of the equation, as Labour did in 2019 with their move to a 2nd Referendum position on Brexit.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
But if your mortgage is paid off and you’re comfortably retired but feeling nostalgic for real binmen, then maybe it resonates. That’s the target market, and there are lots of them.
The mistake is assuming they want working age people to vote for them.
I think their core vote is now comfortably retired people who don't follow the news closely. I know quite a few people who are very well off - their mortgages are a distant memory - but saw Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as repellent (they didn't like Corbyn either). They aren't nearly as worried by Sunak, but the culture war stuff actually puts them off. They are mostly ex-Con tactical voters, not too bothered if the main challenger is LD or Lab. A moderate Tory party could well recover their support.
Which suggests the Tory share could possibly fall a bit further as some of the more low engagement voters catch on the fact the government are very unpopular. As well as the natural demographic changes over the next 2 years.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
Tories to fight on culture and trans as the key issues? Lol - bring it on.
It is the only battleground they don't seem to have an obvious disadvantage on (aside from Ukraine, metaphorically - though there is no real policy daylight between them and Labour). Unfortunately for them, it's also a battleground largely irrelevant to most people, especially at a time when this government has had a real and lasting negative impact on income and quality of life for many.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Having it as the central part of an election campaign is indeed bloody stupid, but that doesn't mean it can't have any place at all.
Sure. The shriller sort of social conservatism (embodied by, say, Lady Olga Maitland) has always been part of the Conservative family.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
I think so. It's a core vote strategy - the 'core' being the new rather fruity one forged via Brexit. The Tory campaign won't be one of the finer things in life but this approach does imo give them the best chance of say 220 seats and decent 2nd place.
But leaves them far away from forming an election-winning coalition. It's hard to see how they become electable again without doing a Cameronesque shift back to the liberal centre (at least socially) at which point they'll likely lose many of the loons, fruitcakes and closet racists anyway.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
That is true. But if they go on their record, or economic difference, or (lol) competence, there's a big downside risk of leaking to the right, losing lots of Boris/Brexit voters, still getting hammered in the floating middle, and really sinking to a terrible result, the sort that could trash the brand entirely (in electoral terms) and make some sort of gamechanging realignment a possibility. I think they'll seek to take that outcome out of the equation, as Labour did in 2019 with their move to a 2nd Referendum position on Brexit.
Yep, if near-extinction is a possibility, then core vote to somewhere around 200 puts them in better shape. If the realistic floor under anyone (except Truss!) is really around 200, then attempting to build a coalition of non-loons might make more sense.
As long as it's bad enough to precipitate a major clear out under a new leader, it doesn't really matter if they keep the loons this time, I guess.
The coalition of non-loons would probably have required a big clearout of the cabinet loons under Sunak, which of course didn't happen. So, we are where we are.
But because Starmer stayed on the inside, he could reform Labour. I quote the German poet, Hans Magnus Enzenberger's praise for the “heroes of the retreat”. The communist, Apartheid and Francoist politicians, who knew the game was up and took their countries to a better future
Labour has only ever been changed because people have been prepared to serve with people they did not agree with, in order to deliver change later on. Starmer has the same ability and drive to do this as Attlee, Wilson and Blair.
I agree with this, and the article in the tweet. The decision to cut and run or to stay and fight is a tricky one and I suspect the 'correct' answer depends on the circumstances. In the circumstances, Starmer made the right decision.
Comments
(Although technically it was Jo Swinson)
She’s only 52 for crying out loud. She has totally free hands now and can do what the hell she likes. Good on her!
If I was her I’d leave public life behind, but I’ve known her since she was 16, and in my heart of hearts I know that she just cannot/will not do that. Her first passion wasn’t independence but the campaign against nuclear weapons (it was that which led her to support independence). I can see her taking some sort of roll in an international organisation, eg ICAN.
When your mortgage has just gone up by hundreds of pounds a months thanks to the Tories' buccaneering economic idiocy (let alone strikes, pay, energy, CoL etc.), hearing Kemi or Lee wittering on about willies and fannies is hardly going to persuade you to vote for them.
Also, I didn't blame the slaughtered, as that includes both the innocent and the instigators (Sicarii/Zealots).
It's also worth remembering that in the ancient world things were done differently. Applying modern standards is faintly ridiculous.
Mildly surprised you felt the need to cast a slur against the British regarding a war fought in the 1st century AD.
His crib sheet so far:
Slag off the Sun when in Liverpool
Dial down the UJs in Scotland
More flegs everywhere else
Go on about crushing antisemitism in the Labour at every opportunity, except that 2015-2019 period
Be intensely comfortable with big business
DON'T MENTION INDUSTRIAL ACTION
DON'T MENTION BREXIT
Those Tufton Street gophers are worth their weight in gold. Golden showers.
Couldn't resist coming on for a few minutes to laugh at the turmoil of the Scottish Nasty Party
The social issues are not massive swingers of votes between parties, but they do affect turnout. See the Democrat over-performance in the US mid-terms, which was attributed to socially liberal women turning out. Starmer, as with Blair in 1997, needs 2019 Tories to stay at home and not be afraid of him, as they were of Corbyn.
The mistake is assuming they want working age people to vote for them.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the cupboard looks increasingly bare and what there is looks like "clearing up the mess an earlier iteration of the Conservative government (not us, mate) made". Social conservatism front and centre might be all they have.
*there are some variations, of course, depending what was said, it might be possible to retain those staff if they shut up; or you might sack some people but still take some of the concerns on board
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/national/uk-retail-sales-rise-by-0-5-in-january/ar-AA17AVND?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f8fde6b5356c441b990aefaf014ef558
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/senior-russian-military-official-plunges-16-storeys-to-her-death-falling-from-window/ar-AA17AmsN?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=75bac99a4a734015ae429a663f2884e3
The political situation is something I usually studiously avoid with my Scottish colleagues but it’s inevitably come up in recent conversations.
Most are what I’d describe as soft unionists or undecideds, very much of the “don’t do anything to disrupt business” fraternity as opposed to throw bottles at Rangers matches type (they are pretty much all remainers).
While there seems to be a feeling the SNP has peaked, there’s also a strong hint of tactical unwind. A few who would have voted Tory to keep out the nationalists last time wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole now. Much more support for Labour than I recall in the recent past.
If that’s the case across the nation then I could see the Tories going badly backwards, Labour gaining a bit, and the SNP advancing in seats at the next GE even if the vote share goes down.
To a much greater extent than Labour or the LibDems, the Greens really are invested in culture war stuff, and ready to take on the Tories over it. That appeals to a chunk of young people who aren't that interested in classic left-wing themes (tax more to fund the NHS, support trade unions, build more social housing, etc.). It doesn't work well in areas like the Red Wall where cost of living issues are more pressing.
First flight for 4 years. Cancelled. B'ham to Frankfurt with Lufthansa. Strike apparently.
Worried and Suffering: largest group in 129 constituencies
Cautiously Hopeful Strugglers: 5
Squeezed but Coping: 396
Unsettled Withstanders: 13
Calm and Comfortable: 89
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1626511695488204801?s=46&t=Y-yq9WDF6TP_KA1a9Ke5Gg
The realignments post a move to PR would be fascinating.
(A shout out to the Litvinenko docu-drama, by the way. Very good television.)
A couple of men in black throwing someone out of the window, on the other hand, is much easier to organise, and everyone locally knows what it means for them if they step out of line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio and all that
Oh
“Germany mulls sending refugees to Africa”
https://www.dw.com/en/new-german-migration-official-aims-to-send-refugees-to-africa/a-64667296
https://twitter.com/BenMacpherson/status/1626514317121138688?s=20
A new joiner (American) announced a “petition” and demanded people sign it. A lengthy screed with a range of political positions that the signer was supposed to agree with. More of a loyalty oath than a petition
When people ignored this or refused to sign, she complained of a toxic workplace.
The witch finder was strong with that one.
Included in the complaints
Send them to Libya - the Libyan Coast Guard can take good care of them.
You're entitled to the opinion; I think it's nuts.
So they're desperate for there to be no deal on the protocol so that the Republic is forced into the position of erecting a border to protect the single market, or of de facto leaving the single market to remain in a common economic zone with Northern Ireland.
May save some seats this time, but makes the job of the next leader harder, because the approach looks kind of ok-ish and fuels a 'one more heave' narrative. If it saves enough seats to save Sunak, then they'll be really screwed, because they'd be more likely to stick with it. Unless, of course, Labour make a complete horlicks of being in power and we get - as now - an electorate that simply wants the current government out. That is also possible.
I acknowledged that preventing attacks on colleagues is well within management's purview; Max was arguing they should also be able to ban the public expression of opinions by their workers.
The problem comes when the individual is publiclly associated with a company and many will assume the expression represents the company.
The first should always be allowable, the second the company has a right to step in. I post as Pagan2 for example so people can't associate any opinion expressed with a company I work for. This is why demands we deanonymise identity and we have to post under our own names is so stifling of debate.
I chose, for a variety of reasons, to leave and now have a job where I am permitted to express such opinions.
It depends on the circumstances. One of the places I worked with restrictions was (an exceuitve agency of the) civil service and I can appreciate that there is a need for workers there not to publicly question the policies they are supposed to be enacting, as that undermines confidence in what they are doing. There are other places where it seems less appropriate - media being one, where differences of opinion should be possible, and academia being another obvious example.
Where expressing opinions is forbidden, there should be a clear rationale as to why that harms the organisation or the work of the organisation.
30 point Labour lead by July.
It's likely that the Tories have, as in late 90s/early 00s plenty of time in the wilderness to talk to themselves before they're ready to talk to the country again. But perhaps they could accelerate things being ready for the next* election
*after the one they're going to lose in the next couple of years
The best chance of restoring Stormont would seem to be a deal on the protocol, supported by the UUP and Unionist voters at new Assembly elections. Unfortunately, it looks like Unionist voters are driving this more than the DUP leadership. Given power-sharing, unless Unionist voters can be persuaded there will be deadlock. That's the whole principle of power-sharing.
Someone needs to either convince those voters to support a compromise, or find a compromise they can support. That's democracy for you. No-one said it was easy. It struggles if a large enough group are unwilling to compromise.
Perhaps a degree of patience, of implementing a new deal, so that people can see it doesn't do what they fear, will have to be one element of persuasion. But Northern Ireland could do with a government to get on with things.
https://omnisis.co.uk/poll-results/vi-22-results-17-02-2023/
Several of the worst rows I ever saw, real relationship- and department-wreckers, came when people ignored that and just went ahead. Idiots.
But the problem I have is that for a newspaper is that *everything* comes under its purview. In theory journos are supposed not to be biased - at least on the BBC, for instance. Yet everyone knows commercial newspapers and state broadcasters have their position. Suppose a DT journo moonlights with an article in the Graun attacking the Tories and saying the SNP or Labour or whoever are great. What happens then?
But because Starmer stayed on the inside, he could reform Labour. I quote the German poet, Hans Magnus Enzenberger's praise for the “heroes of the retreat”. The communist, Apartheid and Francoist politicians, who knew the game was up and took their countries to a better future
Labour has only ever been changed because people have been prepared to serve with people they did not agree with, in order to deliver change later on. Starmer has the same ability and drive to do this as Attlee, Wilson and Blair.
Because of the threat of violence. Even at a few steps removed - “there will be a problem with dissidents unless you give us X”
Extremism was seen to win.
All good with you?
*me
If the talents to pull the Conservatives back after a likely 2024 defeat are there, I'd expect them to be around, hiding in plain sight, now. Anyone know who we should be keeping an eye on? Or has 2010-now scared off the centre right whizzkids as well as the centre right dads?
I know this is just a sub sample and we are not allowed to think about sub samples so generally I don’t - but is that quite unusual in a Scottish sub sample? The SNP down to 2nd?
The first actual Scottish poll following the End of the Sturgeon will be fascinating
NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (15 Feb):
🔴 LAB: 48% (-2 from 9 Feb)
🔵 CON: 21% (=)
🟢 GRN: 8% (+2)
🟠 LDM: 8% (+1)
🟣 RFM: 7% (=)
🟡 SNP: 5% (+1)
https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1626494865851797504
https://twitter.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1626354256893603840?s=20
-NHS England
-The Scottish Government
-The Welsh Government
-14 Universities
-Numerous mental health organisations
This should worry us all.
https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1626299940300267521?s=20
As long as it's bad enough to precipitate a major clear out under a new leader, it doesn't really matter if they keep the loons this time, I guess.
The coalition of non-loons would probably have required a big clearout of the cabinet loons under Sunak, which of course didn't happen. So, we are where we are.