Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

A hollow victory for the hollow crown? – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    edited March 2023

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    Yes, the same people who scream for deregulation and free enterprise change their tune very rapidly, and push for government funds shamelessly.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,122
    edited March 2023

    Reeves says Labour will keep the triple lock.

    Idiotic move. Scrap it now.

    They probably have to keep the triple lock because otherwise they’ll get hammered at the election on it.

    The move is to have a shortish inquiry post election, probably including looking again at old age care costs & then announce that the only way to fund our glorious NHS is to extend national insurance to pensioners. Tweak around the edges as appropriate.

    What the government gives with one hand can be taken away with the other...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    A rather devastating opinion piece in the Guardian/Observer about society's toleration of violence against women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us

    No-one is spared criticism. Something a bit sobering to consider of a Sunday morning.

    One of the odder things about Boris is his insecure pandering to the vile Stanley even after the way Stanley tried to embarrass and undermine Boris during covid.
    Stanley is a vile wife beater, but we can't choose our parents.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,739
    edited March 2023
    Re; poliitical appointees, and the discussion yesterday, you could still easily describe Birt as a political appointee.

    He was brought in during the Major period by MIchael Checkland, who was brought in by Thatcher, to counter the more left-of-centre influence of Alasdair Milne.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    A rather devastating opinion piece in the Guardian/Observer about society's toleration of violence against women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us

    No-one is spared criticism. Something a bit sobering to consider of a Sunday morning.

    One of the odder things about Boris is his insecure pandering to the vile Stanley even after the way Stanley tried to embarrass and undermine Boris during covid.
    Stanley is a vile wife beater, but we can't choose our parents.
    We can choose not to put them in the HoL…
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    I've now had more "Breaking News" push notifications from the BBC for Lineker than I did for the Queen.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818
    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,217

    Reeves says Labour will keep the triple lock.

    Idiotic move. Scrap it now.

    Doesn't mean they will. Its just most likely a lie for the manifesto
    Parties don’t tend to lie on their manifesto
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 952
    I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).

    The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,290

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    I agree. It's one of the reasons why Boris Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis was so distasteful. It's similar when people talk about the EUSSR.

  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    Reflecting on the debate last night I have changed my opinion a bit.

    Lineker was guilty of hyperbole in comparing the language to 1930s Germany, which everyone reasonably equates to the Nazis even if he did not use the word.

    He went too far in making a point about his dislike for the immigration proposals (which I share).

    However, the BBC were totally wrong to ban him and will likely have to backtrack.

    Kudos to those on here who do not support Lineker's views but defend his right to state them.

    To those who are happy to see him banned I say: we see your true colours now.

    Listen to the LBC clip posted above. It's absolutely fair to compare this government to the Nazis because you can literally substitute "refugee" for "Jew" in Braverman's speeches and it sounds like Joseph himself wrote them for her

    The Final Solution came after a decade and more of nasty propaganda written specifically to demonise. The Conservative Party are publishing their own nasty propaganda to demonise. Using the same rhetorical structures. To whip up public hate mobs. Which the propagandist then uses as something to blame the victims for.

    Not everything Nazi immediately becomes the holocaust. Where you can't talk about the dark arts of Goebbels because of genocide. We bloody well can precisely to stop things leading that far. The Nazis wanted to expel the Jews. A small chunk of Tory voters want to expel the refugees. Sink them if needed. And the Conservative Party is pandering to this. For votes.
    Not sure you're on message.

    The line is "Look at his tweet, Lineker didn't compare the government to Nazis!"
    He DID compare them to the Nazis. And as there is demonstrable comparisons between Braverman and Goebbels he was right to do so
    At least you admit it.

    Please tell it to the Herd.
    I don't know this herd. Are the similar to the "swarm" or the "invasion" your lot refer to in an obviously un-Nazi way?
    I'm sure there's nothing sinister about being called a "herd" by someone whose avatar shows a cow cut into bits of meat...
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,798

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    I think it probably does count as dehumanizing to most people, but it would be better for all to acknowledge that Nazis were human, and remember thereby that humans are capable of profound evil.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029

    Truth is I can now see both sides of the 'Lineker right or wrong' argument.

    This government is of course nothing like the Nazis (thank God).

    Otoh dehumanising language led in no small part to the Nazis, and the Nazis didn't start with the death camps, they started with incremental reductions in liberties.

    I'm going out the the workshop to make some sawdust and consider my position further.

    Happy debating!

    I think some people feel they simply can't make their point without hyperbole, and social media bubbles haven't helped here.

    The government has used language like stopped, banned, denied, detained and deported.

    You could argue that's a tough line but it's not dehumanising.
    How would you describe a Home Secretary talking about a ‘patriotic majority’ wanting something done about people arriving on small boats, that not doing something about this would be ‘betrayal’ and that 100 million’ asylum seekers are ‘coming here’; tough line or hyperbole?
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    For an american equivalent consider how many times the word 'socialist' is used against any fractionally centre-left or even centrist idea.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    edited March 2023

    https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1634851648622194688

    Simon Clarke there, supporting cancel culture

    Delet d
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!

    Do you really think any senior BBC management will be going as a result of this? These are Boris Johnson's people. They will not resign. They will have to be fired. How does that happen? Politically, Sunak cannot fire Sharp as it will infuriate the right of his party. And Sharp cannot fire Davie because it would only raise questions about why he isn't going too.

    I think that's right. I can't think of one of Johnson's oppos who have ever done the honourable thing until there was no other option left.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,542
    Roger said:

    Stramash=An Uproar. A new word!

    From what I'm seeing the vast majority don't put refugees on boats very high on their list of concerns. So all it does is make Tory Ultras- who do -look weirder than usual.

    Rishi hasn't been a terrible PM. Much better than both his predecessors but all through his premiership he's been fighting a rearguard action trying to mitigate the damage his poisonous Home Secretary causes every time she's let out of her cage. Boris had J R-M and Mad Nad but he at least looked in control of them. Rishi looks spooked.

    One of the better poems my kids studied at school was Street Talk by JK Annand

    There was a rammie in the street,
    A stishie and stramash.
    The crabbit wifie up the stair
    Pit up her winda sash.

    “Nou what’s adae?” the wifie cried,
    “Juist tell me what’s adae.”
    A day is twinty-fower hours, missis,
    Nou gie us peace to play.

    “Juist tell me what’s ado,” she cried,
    “And nane o yer gab,” cried she.
    D’ye no ken a doo’s a pigeon, missis?
    Nou haud your wheesht a wee.

    “I want to ken what’s up,” she cried,
    “And nae mair o yer cheek, ye loun.”
    It’s only yer winda that’s up, missis.
    For guidsake pit it doun.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,403
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    The losses aren’t in London

    But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?

    I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.

    You realise it’s the tech sector getting bailed out not the “city folk”?



  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    Eabhal said:

    I've now had more "Breaking News" push notifications from the BBC for Lineker than I did for the Queen.

    Turn off notifications.. simples...
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    DougSeal said:

    Reeves says Labour will keep the triple lock.

    Idiotic move. Scrap it now.

    Doesn't mean they will. Its just most likely a lie for the manifesto
    Parties don’t tend to lie on their manifesto
    Dint be silly
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782
    Ratters said:

    I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).

    The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.

    I expect something like this is being drawn up today, though I expect securitization on deposits rather than interest. It should only be a few months, supposedly three or four buyers are sniffing around already because SVB UK has loads of highly prized companies on it's books and a good reputation within the tech sector.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,217
    Eabhal said:

    I've now had more "Breaking News" push notifications from the BBC for Lineker than I did for the Queen.

    Once she had died there was not much more “breaking” about the news. What we saw yesterday was a wildcat strike which, with all due respect, is a story with more moving parts than a dead person.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,403

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    It’s not the “market” generally

    Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry
  • Options
    Reclaim the swarm

    Swarms of bees are the bee's knees

    We just need to build enough hives
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    Right.

    So an Asian PM, an Asian HoSec with a Jewish husband and a black Foreign secretary are all closet Nazis ?

    Doesn't sound likely to me.
    It always surprises me. Michael Howard had Jewish parents but it didn't stop him waging war on another persecuted minority. Gypsies. Maybe after a while people forget their backgrounds or perhaps don't make the connection.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    The losses aren’t in London

    But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?

    I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.

    You realise it’s the tech sector getting bailed out not the “city folk”?



    Same principle though. They want government to stay away for innovation and then run to them for help when it all collapses
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,217

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    Not at all. Nazis were humans. Deeply evil humans, but humans nonetheless. Humans don’t “swarm” etc. though. That’s why it’s dehumanising.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    I agree. It's one of the reasons why Boris Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis was so distasteful. It's similar when people talk about the EUSSR.

    Clever bit of switching there. The EU are an organisation, not people. They are rightly open targets for verbal attack, ridicule and abuse. The same goes for the Tory party (and all the other parties). That is not to say I think those labels you mention are accurate but there is a world of difference between labelling an organisation, a company or a political party and labelling people themselves in a derogatory way. You cannot dehumanise something that is not human.

    So I am afraid your protests, and comparisons, are false.

    Personally I have long objected to the extension of people's 'rights', such as protection from libel, from individuals to organisations. Something we see most prominently in the US where companies and organisations use fundamental rights such as freedom of speech as a means of preventing criticism of, or limitations on, their actions.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,457

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    The losses aren’t in London

    But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?

    I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.

    You realise it’s the tech sector getting bailed out not the “city folk”?



    Same principle though. They want government to stay away for innovation and then run to them for help when it all collapses
    If the bank is fully capitalised, as has been suggested, then it would be extraordinarily spiteful to let hundreds of businesses fail because they temporarily cannot access their money through no fault of their own.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    edited March 2023
    Eabhal said:

    I've now had more "Breaking News" push notifications from the BBC for Lineker than I did for the Queen.

    I deleted the BBC news app completely a while ago after one too many trivial notifications.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    I agree. It's one of the reasons why Boris Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis was so distasteful. It's similar when people talk about the EUSSR.

    Agreed.

    Now perhaps its nostalgia but I don't remember this level of idiotic abuse back when I was younger.

    But back then we heard from politicians much less - Panorama, Weekend World and parliamentary reports in the upmarket media.

    Usually rational, in depth discussions.

    Now with social media and 24 hour news we get much more, but much more superficial, politics and a need to be ever more extreme to be noticed.
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    Right.

    So an Asian PM, an Asian HoSec with a Jewish husband and a black Foreign secretary are all closet Nazis ?

    Doesn't sound likely to me.
    It wouldn't have sounded likely to me either, five years ago.

    And TBF they are not actual Nazis.

    Just hard right xenophobic idiots and rather inept politicians with a contempt for the law, who might be mistaken for Nazis by people with a lack of understanding of the nuances of the subject.

    Like, say, an ex-footballer who once had to present a show in his underpants because of an unwise prediction he made.
    Rishi Sunak doesnt strike me as a hard right xenophobe.

    I agree but if he believes that he has to play to the hard right xenophobes in the Tory party/membership/Daily Mail in order to survive then the outcome is going to be pretty much the same
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,403
    Ratters said:

    I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).

    The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.

    It will be Debtor-In-Possession financing, so senior to all other claims (including HMRC).

    The security isn’t the end companies though - it’s the cash balances sitting in SVB UK’s accounts. So the rate will be relatively low (around the government’s cost of funding plus a small premium)

    The only risk is some clever bloke in the US figures a way to transfer funds out of the UK
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    ...
    I think it is quite good, and definitely fills a gap in the market, but it doesn't have adverts at all it seems to me - just trails its own programming. I'm amazed they have managed to make this much.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    Ratters said:

    I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).

    The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.

    It will be Debtor-In-Possession financing, so senior to all other claims (including HMRC).

    The security isn’t the end companies though - it’s the cash balances sitting in SVB UK’s accounts. So the rate will be relatively low (around the government’s cost of funding plus a small premium)

    The only risk is some clever bloke in the US figures a way to transfer funds out of the UK
    Smile at Rishi Sunak seems to be the easiest method.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,403

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    The losses aren’t in London

    But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?

    I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.

    You realise it’s the tech sector getting bailed out not the “city folk”?



    Same principle though. They want government to stay away for innovation and then run to them for help when it all collapses
    Not really.

    This is the government protecting innocent parties who would other suffer very serious collateral damage.

    That’s one of the functions of government
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782

    Ratters said:

    I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).

    The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.

    It will be Debtor-In-Possession financing, so senior to all other claims (including HMRC).

    The security isn’t the end companies though - it’s the cash balances sitting in SVB UK’s accounts. So the rate will be relatively low (around the government’s cost of funding plus a small premium)

    The only risk is some clever bloke in the US figures a way to transfer funds out of the UK
    On the latter point, thank fuck for ring fencing, as I said earlier. After this I don't think it will be long until other countries start copying that bit of regulation. Especially if, as it seems, the UK arm of SVB comes through unscathed and its clients aren't sent into bankruptcy.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    The market can work without government support if the government regulatory framework is tight enough. Why is the private provision of medical services so successful in Europe but such a disaster in the US? Because the European countries tightly regulate that market at all levels including limiting the profits that are permitted to be made. I agree this is not a pure free market - nothing is outside of anarchy - but it does not require the sorts of interventions in the market to keep them afloat that you are talking about or that we are seeing here with SVB.

    Sadly those opposed to more privatisation look continually to the US for their example and not enough to the rest of the world.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    DougSeal said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    Not at all. Nazis were humans. Deeply evil humans, but humans nonetheless. Humans don’t “swarm” etc. though. That’s why it’s dehumanising.
    Words like swarming or teeming are often used to describe crowds of people. Even if it has a negative connotation it is absolutely not dehumanising.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    A rather devastating opinion piece in the Guardian/Observer about society's toleration of violence against women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us

    No-one is spared criticism. Something a bit sobering to consider of a Sunday morning.

    One of the odder things about Boris is his insecure pandering to the vile Stanley even after the way Stanley tried to embarrass and undermine Boris during covid.
    Every child is desperate for approval from their parents.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,407

    DougSeal said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    Not at all. Nazis were humans. Deeply evil humans, but humans nonetheless. Humans don’t “swarm” etc. though. That’s why it’s dehumanising.
    Words like swarming or teeming are often used to describe crowds of people. Even if it has a negative connotation it is absolutely not dehumanising.
    "Flocking" too, though it seems GB misheard it.

  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,636

    ...

    I think it is quite good ...
    I must add that to my list of surprising facts. Along with the Pope's Catholicity and ursine excretory habits in sylvan surroundings.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032
    DougSeal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I've now had more "Breaking News" push notifications from the BBC for Lineker than I did for the Queen.

    Once she had died there was not much more “breaking” about the news. What we saw yesterday was a wildcat strike which, with all due respect, is a story with more moving parts than a dead person.
    It shows how many moving parts BBC Sport has, when each funcionary saying their bit is thought worthy of a push notification.

    The BBC just loves talking about the BBC. They don't need much of an excuse.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    Chris said:

    ...

    I think it is quite good ...
    I must add that to my list of surprising facts. Along with the Pope's Catholicity and ursine excretory habits in sylvan surroundings.
    I am not a regular viewer, but it's quite a good attempt to replicate a Fox News format in the UK but less obnoxious.

    But I have no idea how they make money.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944

    Oh good, I am glad that trio of utter helmets are on the case.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    The losses aren’t in London

    But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?

    I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.

    You realise it’s the tech sector getting bailed out not the “city folk”?



    Same principle though. They want government to stay away for innovation and then run to them for help when it all collapses
    If the bank is fully capitalised, as has been suggested, then it would be extraordinarily spiteful to let hundreds of businesses fail because they temporarily cannot access their money through no fault of their own.
    Indeed, putting this into a standard retail context - if Goldman Sachs went bankrupt (unlikely I know) then retail depositors of Marcus (the UK retail brach of GS) would be in the same position as SVB clients are now despite Marcus being a fully capitalised UK only subsidiary that is ring fenced from the rest of GS. What is being suggested by some "yeah but markets lol" people is that those depositors should have to wait for months to access their money, miss mortgage payments potentially have their homes repossessed because a few people think that the city(?!) shouldn't get bailed out.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029

    A rather devastating opinion piece in the Guardian/Observer about society's toleration of violence against women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us

    No-one is spared criticism. Something a bit sobering to consider of a Sunday morning.

    One of the odder things about Boris is his insecure pandering to the vile Stanley even after the way Stanley tried to embarrass and undermine Boris during covid.
    Every child is desperate for approval from their parents.
    Possibly even more so if père is handy with his fists.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770
    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    From the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62104268

    They [protesters] swarmed into Colombo's government district, shouting slogans such as "Gota go home!" and breaking through several police barricades to reach President Rajapaksa's house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53014819

    Trips on the A82 by Loch Lomond have jumped by 91%, presumably due to crowds swarming to the popular beauty spot last weekend.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23712438

    Scottish fans swarmed to Trafalgar Square
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782
    DavidL said:

    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944

    It's astonishing that they found the time given the existential Lineker crisis that seems to threaten the end of civilisation as we know it.
    Indeed, on the one hand 20,000 people's jobs and the UK's position as eminent tech hub of Europe are both under threat but also, a footballer chatted shit. Difficult to know which priority is most important.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
    As noted last night, if your flagship policy is so fragile that it can be entirely derailed by a single tweet, then perhaps it's not as robust a position as its proponents claim
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883

    Chris said:

    ...

    I think it is quite good ...
    I must add that to my list of surprising facts. Along with the Pope's Catholicity and ursine excretory habits in sylvan surroundings.
    I am not a regular viewer, but it's quite a good attempt to replicate a Fox News format in the UK but less obnoxious.

    But I have no idea how they make money.
    Two possibilities.

    First is that they don't care about money. They have sufficiently wealthy backers who like the idea of funding a right-wing propaganda outfit.

    Second is that they have a plan that involves short-term losses to create growth and credibility on which they will capitalise later on.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    DavidL said:

    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944

    It's astonishing that they found the time given the existential Lineker crisis that seems to threaten the end of civilisation as we know it.
    Meanwhile our friends on the left cheer this on:

    Most common phrase in my inbox right now: “we can’t make payroll with the insured amount”

    https://twitter.com/matthewclifford/status/1634502412361777154?s=20

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    Second is that they have a plan that involves short-term losses to create growth and credibility on which they will capitalise later on.

    Then they have a big problem...

    JRM's new show is especially tragic apparently
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    Foxy said:

    On top of the money paid to Macron, it would probably help if we financially supported the EU interdiction of migrant boats in the Med and Aegean. The further upstream the better.

    Absolutely. If we can get the Libyan Coast Guard to atrite the route the Albanians use, they can haul them off to their “work camps” in Libya as well.

    A competent government would get a percentage of the money the Libyan hangars are getting for selling the labour of their detainees.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    Has Suella Braverman even used the word "swarm" or does this come from the fake news bubble?
  • Options

    Here we go again.

    Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.

    The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.

    Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
    It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
    The market can work without government support if the government regulatory framework is tight enough. Why is the private provision of medical services so successful in Europe but such a disaster in the US? Because the European countries tightly regulate that market at all levels including limiting the profits that are permitted to be made. I agree this is not a pure free market - nothing is outside of anarchy - but it does not require the sorts of interventions in the market to keep them afloat that you are talking about or that we are seeing here with SVB.

    Sadly those opposed to more privatisation look continually to the US for their example and not enough to the rest of the world.
    The problem Richard is that the Tories are not advocating a European model, they're advocating a US model.

    I agree with everything you said - but the only people that can deliver that are Labour/Lib Dems.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818
    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,739
    edited March 2023
    Re; the discussion of the history of Tory placemen at the BBC, looking up I see that the battle between Alasdair Milne and the other placemen such as "Duke" Hussey had some amusing aspects.

    Hussey was the other placeman along with Checkland whose job it was to move the BBC to the Right - Hussey forced out Milne and brought in Checkland, and then a few years later Checkland brought in Birt.

    Milne was essentially a soft-leftish patrician appealing to the Tory Wets who had been connected to his appointment, and who had also cleared the establishment of Channel 4 the same year.

    When they first got rid of him he described them as a "bunch of amateurs" and Birt as the "most graceless man I've ever met. His idea that the BBC has a "bias against understanding" ( ie that it was too 'difficult' and inacessible) is balls, actually".

    He then went on to describe the BBC's output in the early 2000's as "dumb and more dumb", which compared to his period, is true.

    I think the moral of the story is : don't appoint politically, or don't even allow the system to do that. Milne was a great appointment because he wasn't a slave to the government of the day, and this equally applies to a number of slightly more right-of-centre people appointed in the Wilson and Callaghan years, rather than their most blatantly political , and nodding-donkey, ones.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770
    edited March 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
    As noted last night, if your flagship policy is so fragile that it can be entirely derailed by a single tweet, then perhaps it's not as robust a position as its proponents claim
    I have yet to see evidence of anything as coherent as a policy. Rather a serious of statements designed to make it appear that they are 'doing something' and 'getting tough'.

    I am more than happy to concede that - as with the NIP stuff a couple of weeks ago - it is possible there is other stuff going on behind the scenes that is more coherent and robust. But I have yet to see any evidence for it.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Never had you down as such an arch-royalist that you consider the Duke of Edinburgh your God, but I suppose you do live in Sweden.
    Depends which incarnation, though. That can definitely be a point of dispute in Tibetan Buddhism, I understand.
    Need to be careful there. Insulting the Duke of Edinburgh would be to insult the memory of Prince Philip.

    Who was divine according to the Yaohnanen.

    Insulting the religions of minorities could get you cancelled. Maybe even legal trouble under the race relations laws….
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029

    Has Suella Braverman even used the word "swarm" or does this come from the fake news bubble?

    Does 100 million coming here count as a swarm or several?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
    Pretty simple. Referring to groups of human beings as insects is ugly, dangerous and inflammatory.
  • Options
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
    Pretty simple. Referring to groups of human beings as insects is ugly, dangerous and inflammatory.
    Referring to them as a destructive elemental force is fine?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,247
    So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.
  • Options
    LOL

    Rishi is quite stupid. He doesn’t understand optics.


  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    From the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62104268

    They [protesters] swarmed into Colombo's government district, shouting slogans such as "Gota go home!" and breaking through several police barricades to reach President Rajapaksa's house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53014819

    Trips on the A82 by Loch Lomond have jumped by 91%, presumably due to crowds swarming to the popular beauty spot last weekend.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23712438

    Scottish fans swarmed to Trafalgar Square

    The verb swarm isn't the same as the noun.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    Scott_xP said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
    As noted last night, if your flagship policy is so fragile that it can be entirely derailed by a single tweet, then perhaps it's not as robust a position as its proponents claim
    I have yet to see evidence of anything as coherent as a policy. Rather a serious of statements designed to make it appear that they are 'doing something' and 'getting tough'.

    I am more than happy to concede that - as with the NIP stuff a couple of weeks ago - it is possible there is other stuff going on behind the scenes that is more coherent and robust. But I have yet to see any evidence for it.
    Richard, are you in favour of the deal? For me, the absence of any legal exit for the UK (unlike the current NIP) is a dealbreaker.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
    The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?

    If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.

    Isn't you using "dog whistling" dehumanising the people that will respond how Sunak wants?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681
    Roger said:

    Stramash=An Uproar. A new word!

    From what I'm seeing the vast majority don't put refugees on boats very high on their list of concerns. So all it does is make Tory Ultras- who do -look weirder than usual.

    Rishi hasn't been a terrible PM. Much better than both his predecessors but all through his premiership he's been fighting a rearguard action trying to mitigate the damage his poisonous Home Secretary causes every time she's let out of her cage. Boris had J R-M and Mad Nad but he at least looked in control of them. Rishi looks spooked.

    Common word for us in Scotland Roger
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818

    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
    The USA deports a lot of illegal immigrants:

    https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/table39

    Peak year for deportations being 432k in 2013.

    By comparison the UK manages about 3k deportations per year.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned#:~:text=In the year ending March 2022, there were 3,025 FNOs,-EU nationals (1,352).

    Perhaps we should start referring to Sunak and Braverman wanting to pursue a deportation policy similar to that of Barack Obama.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,542

    DavidL said:

    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944

    It's astonishing that they found the time given the existential Lineker crisis that seems to threaten the end of civilisation as we know it.
    Meanwhile our friends on the left cheer this on:

    Most common phrase in my inbox right now: “we can’t make payroll with the insured amount”

    https://twitter.com/matthewclifford/status/1634502412361777154?s=20

    As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
    Pretty simple. Referring to groups of human beings as insects is ugly, dangerous and inflammatory.
    Referring to them as a destructive elemental force is fine?
    Umm, example?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,247

    Jonathan said:

    So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.

    Isn't you using "dog whistling" dehumanising the people that will respond how Sunak wants?
    I don’t think so, nice try though . It’s a pretty common phrase in politics to describe creating signals for your core vote.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Just another parasitic chinless wonder being given a bauble and showing that we are just a colony to these wankers.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246
    "Statues of ‘old white men’ may need to be destroyed, Welsh government advises
    Historical figures praised in their day may now be perceived as 'aggressors' out 'to expand the British Empire', warns new guidance"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/11/statues-old-white-men-may-need-destroyed-welsh-government-advises
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.

    Isn't you using "dog whistling" dehumanising the people that will respond how Sunak wants?
    I don’t think so, nice try though . It’s a pretty common phrase in politics to describe creating signals for your core vote.
    It's actually pretty ugly if you think about it.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    The licence fee needs to go. Then the metrosequal luvvies ycan say what they like. If I am not paying for it they can say what they like.
    Once the license fee has gone Lineker won't be being paid as much as revenue
    will probably drop loads and hopefully he will fuck off to America.. permanently.

    I agree with you that the license fee should go - it is archaic. Difference is that I say that whilst supporting the Lineker view. I'm not saying it in a strop because someone said something I disagree with.
    The TV license being, in effect a tax on TVs, is a historical accident. There was an attempt to create a signal scrambler, which failed, back when TV came in.

    Technology has moved on, but the licence fee has become a totem inside the BBC.

    Everyone there believes that if you move to a subscription model the revenue will collapse.

    Which is why they fought to cripple the spec for digital TVs so that subscription couldn’t be used when digital TV came in
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:



    You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.

    If this is true the CHB3 wasn't the hero we deserved but was the hero we needed.
    The night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.

    The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.

    US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.

    The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64930944

    It's astonishing that they found the time given the existential Lineker crisis that seems to threaten the end of civilisation as we know it.
    Meanwhile our friends on the left cheer this on:

    Most common phrase in my inbox right now: “we can’t make payroll with the insured amount”

    https://twitter.com/matthewclifford/status/1634502412361777154?s=20

    As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
    How on earth do you work that one out? What is a massive corporation tax hike and removing investment allowances if it's not 'fuck business'?
  • Options
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,363
    The key question is whether it makes a difference. I wouldn't worry too much about what a snapshot poll is showing, not least since the issue has been rather overshadowed in recent days and most peoples' views probably aren't set on the matter.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    kamski said:

    From the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62104268

    They [protesters] swarmed into Colombo's government district, shouting slogans such as "Gota go home!" and breaking through several police barricades to reach President Rajapaksa's house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53014819

    Trips on the A82 by Loch Lomond have jumped by 91%, presumably due to crowds swarming to the popular beauty spot last weekend.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23712438

    Scottish fans swarmed to Trafalgar Square

    The verb swarm isn't the same as the noun.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19522575

    In St Tropez, where the port is already glutted with the flash and glitz of billionaire's yachts, a swarm of people has now crowded onto the jetty to drool over the arrival of yet another massive hunk of floating steel

    https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20190311-viennas-unpredictable-vegetable-orchestra

    After the show a swarm of people surrounded the musicians, eager to buy CDs, snap pictures with the group and taste what they’d just heard.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44297611

    10 minutes after our arrival a swarm of people showed up to create a line of 20 cars and 40 bikes.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,782
    Hmm it's already started, a friend of mine just had a rare Sunday email from the company founder suggesting that they're not long for this world as their entire series A is with SVB and there's no timeline about getting access to it beyond the $250k insurance. They're in talks with their VC for bridge funding but if that falls through he's looking for a new job he thinks.
  • Options

    LOL

    Rishi is quite stupid. He doesn’t understand optics.


    Be fair. It's it a swimming pool. Every voter in Stoke has one.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681

    HYUFD said:

    Clear lead for “Don’t know”….




    Or Forbes, despite the fact the vast majority of SNP MPs and MPs have endorsed Yousaf
    This could get really awkward:

    SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 11pm on 11th of March. 3 candidates, 106 endorsements available.

    Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

    Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
    Forbes: 14 (11/3)
    Regan: 1 (0/1)
    None Yet: 37 (14/23)
    None: 4 (4/0)

    https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023

    …Yousaf now has the backing of a majority of the possible MSPs; 32 of 61, which is 33 of 64 inclusive of the leadership candidates.


    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1634692615785332736?s=20

    Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
    MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
    If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
  • Options
    It is a real privilege to be insulted by @malcolmg
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,217

    Has Suella Braverman even used the word "swarm" or does this come from the fake news bubble?

    Despite your pathetic attempt at deflection, no one has accused Braverman personally of using the word “swarm” (she said “invasion”) but other Conservative ministers have, notably Cameron told journalists that “a swarm of people” were “seeking a better life” in 2015.

    In the same month Farage said he had been “stuck on the motorway and surrounded by swarms of potential migrants” but even he (and PB defenders of the usage should note) back-pedalled, saying even he would not “use language like that” when asked if he would refer to migrant “swarms”. Note to PB Tories - if even Farage thinks a phrase is too much when referring to migrants, it’s time to give up.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,524

    kamski said:

    From the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62104268

    They [protesters] swarmed into Colombo's government district, shouting slogans such as "Gota go home!" and breaking through several police barricades to reach President Rajapaksa's house.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53014819

    Trips on the A82 by Loch Lomond have jumped by 91%, presumably due to crowds swarming to the popular beauty spot last weekend.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23712438

    Scottish fans swarmed to Trafalgar Square

    The verb swarm isn't the same as the noun.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19522575

    In St Tropez, where the port is already glutted with the flash and glitz of billionaire's yachts, a swarm of people has now crowded onto the jetty to drool over the arrival of yet another massive hunk of floating steel

    https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20190311-viennas-unpredictable-vegetable-orchestra

    After the show a swarm of people surrounded the musicians, eager to buy CDs, snap pictures with the group and taste what they’d just heard.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44297611

    10 minutes after our arrival a swarm of people showed up to create a line of 20 cars and 40 bikes.
    I think context also matters. These seem to be fairly positive uses of swarm.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,770

    LOL

    Rishi is quite stupid. He doesn’t understand optics.


    Be fair. It's it a swimming pool. Every voter in Stoke has one.
    They just call it the canal.
  • Options
    I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.

    You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.

    Jimmy Saville
    Noel Edmunds
    Andrew Neil
    Richard Sharpe
    Tim Davey
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,818
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Re dehumanizing language.

    Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?

    Of course it does.

    And that's why it is done.

    Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.

    Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.

    Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.

    But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.

    And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.

    There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
    So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?

    Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?

    What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.

    And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:

    https://youtu.be/T7LGoHV3aKs?t=28

    Or the detention centres currently in use under Joe Biden.

    So is anyone going to claim that the UK government bears comparison with Obama or Biden ?

    Of course not because Obama and Biden are 'good guys' and the allusion is meant to show that the UK government are 'bad guys'.

    So the allusions are made to the Nazis, the badest guys of all.
    Pretty simple. Referring to groups of human beings as insects is ugly, dangerous and inflammatory.
    One thing I will say is that politicians frothing about illegal immigrants (or promising to control immigration generally) but doing nothing about it is never going to be beneficial.

    And I'll suggest that what upsets some people about Sunak and Braverman is that they might actually DO something about illegal immigrants rather than only talk about them.

    They might even deport illegal immigrants at the same rate that Barack Obama did.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    Foxy said:

    On top of the money paid to Macron, it would probably help if we financially supported the EU interdiction of migrant boats in the Med and Aegean. The further upstream the better.

    Given that the EU handed them over to slavers? Really?
    That’s not true.

    The EU subsidised the slave catchers to catch migrants.

    The migrants never touched Europe - out of sight, out of mind.
This discussion has been closed.