Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
That’s a rather silly list. I agree with half the things the twitterer is castigating.
He's not castigating them as such, he's pointing out (quite correctly) that Conservatives get criticised by the left, and in many cases by Labour, for things which Labour also did.
I have to say I'm enjoying the snap back against eroding women's rights in the last few weeks. It's almost as if politicians saw just how many people bought Hogwarts Legacy and realised that a few crazy people on Twitter aren't representative of voters so have pushed ahead with fighting rather than rolling over and allowing the men in dresses into women's single sex spaces.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
Attempted to bring in 90 days imprisonment without trial. Attempted to bring in ID cards. Basically, all of the anti-terror stuff and much of the anti-asylum rhetoric too.
So - 'authoritarian' but without the authority to get those two measures implemented. Got it.
I have to say I'm enjoying the snap back against eroding women's rights in the last few weeks. It's almost as if politicians saw just how many people bought Hogwarts Legacy and realised that a few crazy people on Twitter aren't representative of voters so have pushed ahead with fighting rather than rolling over and allowing the men in dresses into women's single sex spaces.
But, by purchasing Hogwarts Legacy you’re promoting the Great Trans Genocide.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
Attempted to bring in 90 days imprisonment without trial. Attempted to bring in ID cards. Basically, all of the anti-terror stuff and much of the anti-asylum rhetoric too.
So - 'authoritarian' but without the authority to get those two measures implemented. Got it.
That's a really weird criticism. Do we not hold PMs and governments accountable if they attempt something awful but fail to achieve it because opponents defeated them?
If the Tories proposed to withdraw from the ECHR but a small rebellion of backbenchers prevented it, it would still be held against the party leadership that proposed it would it not? It might not be fair to hold it against the leadership of the party in 10 years time, depending on what stance they take, but that they didn't achieve it through no intention of their own is relevant.
Someone might be seeking to be more authoritarian even if they don't manage it. I don't buy that Labour are inherently more so than the Tories, but those examples given definitely showed they had that tendency at the time.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
Attempted to bring in 90 days imprisonment without trial. Attempted to bring in ID cards. Basically, all of the anti-terror stuff and much of the anti-asylum rhetoric too.
So - 'authoritarian' but without the authority to get those two measures implemented. Got it.
They did bring in 28 days. You seem to have forgotten the Blunkett-Straw years.
Definitely seems to be an election on with a slanging match over Jocks in frocks and kiddie fiddlers on the loose. Never mind the facts, get on the outrage bus.
In other news, it doesn't look like the Rwanda policy has deterred anyone. 638 arrivals in 16 small boats in the last two days:
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
Attempted to bring in 90 days imprisonment without trial. Attempted to bring in ID cards. Basically, all of the anti-terror stuff and much of the anti-asylum rhetoric too.
So - 'authoritarian' but without the authority to get those two measures implemented. Got it.
Well authoritarian instincts… Ironic that if labour had had its way, we would all have had ID cards, so no issues for proof of ID to vote.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
Jesus Christ. Scotland needs to go into special measures or something.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
They could start a fundraising campaign for supporters of Murrell’s independence.
But there are no elections in Greater London (other than a few by-elections) on 4th May and it's a mistake simply to transpose the vote share in London to other parts, even the adjoining home counties.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
Jesus Christ. Scotland needs to go into special measures or something.
If they want rid of this dross then it'll have to be done via the ballot box, of course. In the same way that if we want rid of the Tories we'll have to do it at the ballot box.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
Worked for Johnson. Well, I say worked…
At least in the Murrell case the party presumably gains some benefit if he successfully defends himself. In Boris's case the party is screwed by different groups depending on if he succeeds or fails.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
That that position is not controversial may be why a more performative 'reveal' would both be seen as necessary on one side to make a bigger deal of it, and pointless posturing on the other as no one will be surprised by links.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
Worked for Johnson. Well, I say worked…
At least in the Murrell case the party presumably gains some benefit if he successfully defends himself. In Boris's case the party is screwed by different groups depending on if he succeeds or fails.
Definitely seems to be an election on with a slanging match over Jocks in frocks and kiddie fiddlers on the loose. Never mind the facts, get on the outrage bus.
In other news, it doesn't look like the Rwanda policy has deterred anyone. 638 arrivals in 16 small boats in the last two days:
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
The only thing that was unique in the approach of the Western world in respect to slavery was its decision, strongly lead by Britain, to end it, something contested vigorously by other partakers in the industry, leading to massive expenditure by Britain in blood and treasure - Gordon's defeat at Khartoum etc.
Invoking 'the Romans' seems to me a rather pathetic attempt to imply that Britain was reviving a barbaric ancient practise, rather than partaking in a trade that had been a constant in human society since records had been kept.
Yes, there is a great quote on the subject from the Scholar and first Prime Minister of independent Trinidad and Tobago:
"The British historians wrote almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it"
As a matter of interest several West African states have made public apologies for their role in the transatlantic slave trade:
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
[please ignore - point redundant as already raised passim.]
I mean, points for boldness. But it sounds like they think it's easy. SKS himself must know it's not.
It's a lot easier if you don't cut and cut and cut the spending on courts and probation officers because of an ideological obsession with reducing service levels.
Re the advert. The prisons are full to.pverflowing with people who have been. Locked up. The libertarians want fewer sent to prison. The reality is we need mote prosons.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
Do you mean 'affordable housing?' Because 1 and 2 surely lead to three in a country as densely populated as ours.
Either there is a bizarre non-sequitur caused by a Vanilla malfunction here, or you have just suggested the solution to the affordable housing crisis is to build more prisons and lock people up in them.
You would hope that some common sense would be shown. Morbidly obese computer programmers are one thing; morbidly obese firefighters might prove somewhat more problematic.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
The only thing that was unique in the approach of the Western world in respect to slavery was its decision, strongly lead by Britain, to end it, something contested vigorously by other partakers in the industry, leading to massive expenditure by Britain in blood and treasure - Gordon's defeat at Khartoum etc.
Invoking 'the Romans' seems to me a rather pathetic attempt to imply that Britain was reviving a barbaric ancient practise, rather than partaking in a trade that had been a constant in human society since records had been kept.
Yes, there is a great quote on the subject from the Scholar and first Prime Minister of independent Trinidad and Tobago:
"The British historians wrote almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it"
As a matter of interest several West African states have made public apologies for their role in the transatlantic slave trade:
Ghana also has in interesting right of return policy to the African diaspora by means of apology.
Also, I'm not at all sure that all of those have the same continuity of state - both politcally, geographically, and in terms of ruling family - that the UK does. Especially with the new evidence of William III being involved (so getting rid of James VII doesn't resolve the issue).
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Fighting dirt with dirt. Braverman effectively said the same about Labour.
Doesn't excuse it, though. And stooping anywhere near Braverman's level is not a good look.
Tories can easily outbid Labour on such issues, they will go far further than any lefties will.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
I wonder how inflexible people are, though? If you're struggling to find somewhere decent to live with reasonable facilities, and a block of flats near the centre is on offer, might the prejudice against central apartments not decline? They're almost universal in other countries, probably not because people hate detached housing but because affordable and pleasant beats waiting for perfection.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
I wonder how inflexible people are, though? If you're struggling to find somewhere decent to live with reasonable facilities, and a block of flats near the centre is on offer, might the prejudice against central apartments not decline? They're almost universal in other countries, probably not because people hate detached housing but because affordable and pleasant beats waiting for perfection.
London experimented with the idea but the comprehensive commuter rail system (and perhaps pastoral nostalgia) has favoured different developmental models.
Sadly we’re out of space really for those other models, and now people under the age of 40 can’t afford to buy a house or pay rent. London, and by extension, Britain, is basically suffocating its economy to death.
Below is the first Google image result for “mansion block”.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
There are quite a few Tory marginals in London.
Lab led Con by 16 in London at the GE so that is a 24 point movement - the equivalent of a Lab lead of 12 nationally. Lab are more than 12 ahead nationally and so that means they are making more progress outside London. Sorry to spike the copium but this is not good news for the Govt. Its another pollster but the latest RW polls suggest a 28 point movement in the Red Wall and a 30 point movement in the Blue Wall.
There is a while till the GE but this is a very bad position to be in this far out. Better than pre-1997 but far worse than on the run-ins to 1992 or 2015. It makes the chances of securing a position to allow the Govt to call the election in Spring 2024 very dubious IMHO.
Playing with ChatGPT. It is very clever writing film scripts but less so speculating about things like how long it would take a Hamster Army to conquer Barnsley.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
I wonder how inflexible people are, though? If you're struggling to find somewhere decent to live with reasonable facilities, and a block of flats near the centre is on offer, might the prejudice against central apartments not decline? They're almost universal in other countries, probably not because people hate detached housing but because affordable and pleasant beats waiting for perfection.
People don't want leasehold.
You don't own the property, and you're on the hook for unlimited service charges.
Look at how the market for flats has underperformed against the housing market in recent years - people voting with their feet, as the leasehold scandal has gained much wider recognition post Grenfell.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
I wonder how inflexible people are, though? If you're struggling to find somewhere decent to live with reasonable facilities, and a block of flats near the centre is on offer, might the prejudice against central apartments not decline? They're almost universal in other countries, probably not because people hate detached housing but because affordable and pleasant beats waiting for perfection.
People don't want leasehold.
You don't own the property, and you're on the hook for unlimited service charges.
Look at how the market for flats has underperformed against the housing market in recent years - people voting with their feet, as the leasehold scandal has gained much wider recognition post Grenfell.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
It's absolutely political. It's the start of a hustle process that leads to a shakedown and a retreat of British geopolitical influence in penitance.
Charles should know better. Unfortunately, he doesn't and he only surrounds himself with those who won't challenge him.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Transparently clever, but also insincere.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This feels like another area where the dam is just going to burst. It is an organisation that has respect (in the sense that it is a judge over whom the fate of various people/organisations/communities depend) yet actually has very little or no credibility regarding its actual judgements.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Transparently clever, but also insincere.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
We all know this.
As if Rishi, Suella and your other crushes are anything but cynical grifters.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Because the press is in large part a clearing house for right wing propaganda. Keir simply understands his audience.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Unless the assylum seekers are envisaged as a permanent fixture, I don't see how it does damage the long-term prospects for the site to be developed.
I would imagine most voters in the area would prefer them to be housed in a disused military base than in local hotels.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Transparently clever, but also insincere.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
We all know this.
As if Rishi, Suella and your other crushes are anything but cynical grifters.
How many have you had this evening so far?
You know I'm right about Starmer. He lied under Corbyn. He lied to the members to get to be Labour leader. He's now lying to the electorate to become PM. He's a tedious tactical triangulator.
You absolutely don't know what you're going to get with Sir Keir Starmer.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
Interesting how you seem to have been able to identify this personality trait in the King, but don't recognise it in Rishi Sunak, despite evidence being considerably more plentiful in the latter case.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Because polling and focus groups have told him it might play well.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It's also better to get these things in hand and deal with them before they become a forced larger issue. Ignoring them is fair enough - unless they suddenly become a forced issue, Something you have no control over.
Here's a problem for those who believe in reparations: "In 1800, when she was about 12 years old, Sacagawea and several other children were taken captive by a group of Hidatsa in a raid that resulted in the deaths of several Shoshone: four men, four women, and several boys. She was held captive at a Hidatsa village near present-day Washburn, North Dakota.[7]
At about age 13, she was sold into a non-consensual marriage to Toussaint Charbonneau, a Quebecois trapper. He had also bought another young Shoshone girl, known as Otter Woman, for a wife. Charbonneau was variously reported to have purchased both girls from the Hidatsa, or to have won Sacagawea while gambling." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea
(Charboneau and Sacajawea were guides to the (1804-1806) Lewis and Clark expedition.)
If any of her descendants had survived -- and that seems unlikely -- who would owe them reparations? And how much?
(Her story, with its elements of tragedy is not unique. Many Indian tribes stole adolescent girls and women from other tribes, and even from whites. Do the descendants of these girls and young women deserve reparations? What if the descendants are also descended from their captors, as would often be the case?)
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Unless the assylum seekers are envisaged as a permanent fixture, I don't see how it does damage the long-term prospects for the site to be developed.
I would imagine most voters in the area would prefer them to be housed in a disused military base than in local hotels.
There isn't much of anything in Scampton other than the RAF base.
OK, Lincoln isn't too far away but there's not some vast reservoir of jobs for everyone to move to. Some development would probably be welcomed, and sooner rather than later. If it is left for any length of time the place will be hollowed out.
I haven't seen the plans though. Would the centre use up the entire airfield? It is quite large.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It's not a sign of strength to open up multiple lines of attack on Britain and the institutions of the British state. It makes you look weak and simply invites more.
The skillful thing to do would be to find a diplomatic way to check it, and hold the line.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
erm id cards, 90 days detention without trial, gulags for slags for a start?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It is perhaps a dangerous game but I think it is better to have a strategy of being be proactive and constructive about it, than to hunker down in denial.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It's also better to get these things in hand and deal with them before they become a forced larger issue. Ignoring them is fair enough - unless they suddenly become a forced issue, Something you have no control over.
Hand-wringing over slavery is so very 2020.
We all know it happened in the UK before its abolition. This is a precursor to a hustle.
Whether it comes to the Crown jewels, slavery, the institutions of the British state, or even his role as monarch and head of the commonwealth realms Charles is deeply embarrassed to be monarch and his response to any challenge is, "Well, you have a very good point and I agree with. Not sure i particularly like it or the role myself. How would you like me to concede to you?"
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Unless the assylum seekers are envisaged as a permanent fixture, I don't see how it does damage the long-term prospects for the site to be developed.
I would imagine most voters in the area would prefer them to be housed in a disused military base than in local hotels.
There isn't much of anything in Scampton other than the RAF base.
OK, Lincoln isn't too far away but there's not some vast reservoir of jobs for everyone to move to. Some development would probably be welcomed, and sooner rather than later. If it is left for any length of time the place will be hollowed out.
I haven't seen the plans though. Would the centre use up the entire airfield? It is quite large.
Putting asylum seekers in there at least means a little money coming in. I don't see how it does any harm at all. If they were putting on solid, imminent plans to make it the Dambuster Disneyland, that's different. But I don't get that impression.
Labour fighting dirty. Personally I think this goes too far, albeit the Tories at large have largely got away so far with destroying the criminal justice system and attempted to scapegoat various elements.
Unusual for Labour to try to be tougher than the Tories on crime.
You’ve forgotten NewLabour then, whom I found intolerably authoritarian.
In practice, it’s the Tories who have ended up being weaker than whale piss on crime. Your chances of being tried and convicted of pretty much anything are at an all time low.
"intolerably authoritarian"?
In what way?
Attempted to bring in 90 days imprisonment without trial. Attempted to bring in ID cards. Basically, all of the anti-terror stuff and much of the anti-asylum rhetoric too.
So - 'authoritarian' but without the authority to get those two measures implemented. Got it.
They were the fucking government with a huge majority when they proposed those things. Do not be an idiot
Incidentally, I think William has by and large got it right because, whilst I don't particularly agree with everything he says, he doesn't have the same confidence or self-belief issues that Charles does.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It is perhaps a dangerous game but I think it is better to have a strategy of being be proactive and constructive about it, than to hunker down in denial.
Deny what? We all know the aristocracy and monarchs were involved in slavery several hundred years ago.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
Wasn’t the Eccleston thing fairly early in Blair’s first term? Did not seem to do much damage. Suspect it would have been more damaging later on.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Transparently clever, but also insincere.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
We all know this.
As if Rishi, Suella and your other crushes are anything but cynical grifters.
How many have you had this evening so far?
You know I'm right about Starmer. He lied under Corbyn. He lied to the members to get to be Labour leader. He's now lying to the electorate to become PM. He's a tedious tactical triangulator.
You absolutely don't know what you're going to get with Sir Keir Starmer.
Very much the same that was said 30 years or so ago about Blair (who got elected first in 1983 on a Nuclear Disarmament, quit NATO, abolish the Lords etc manifesto) or Wilson 30 years before that, or Attlee 30 years or so before that.
It is just the usual Tory smear of a Labour leader. I am the opposite, as I do believe him, which is why I won't vote for him.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
Wasn’t that said by some about Truss?😀
Somehow I have a feeling that Starmer isn't going to establish a Bennite siege economy.
Very interesting insight in to the late-Thatcher period from John Redwood - relating to the journey toward the ERM
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/ "I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
We can also be sure the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, will be as hopeless in Opposition as they were from 1997-2005.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
This feels like another area where the dam is just going to burst. It is an organisation that has respect (in the sense that it is a judge over whom the fate of various people/organisations/communities depend) yet actually has very little or no credibility regarding its actual judgements.
There’s clearly a need for school inspection. Ofsted doesn’t not meet that need. If anything it’s actually a negative influence.
Here's a problem for those who believe in reparations: "In 1800, when she was about 12 years old, Sacagawea and several other children were taken captive by a group of Hidatsa in a raid that resulted in the deaths of several Shoshone: four men, four women, and several boys. She was held captive at a Hidatsa village near present-day Washburn, North Dakota.[7]
At about age 13, she was sold into a non-consensual marriage to Toussaint Charbonneau, a Quebecois trapper. He had also bought another young Shoshone girl, known as Otter Woman, for a wife. Charbonneau was variously reported to have purchased both girls from the Hidatsa, or to have won Sacagawea while gambling." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea
(Charboneau and Sacajawea were guides to the (1804-1806) Lewis and Clark expedition.)
If any of her descendants had survived -- and that seems unlikely -- who would owe them reparations? And how much?
(Her story, with its elements of tragedy is not unique. Many Indian tribes stole adolescent girls and women from other tribes, and even from whites. Do the descendants of these girls and young women deserve reparations? What if the descendants are also descended from their captors, as would often be the case?)
seems like a case of pleading that because perfection can't be achieved it's no use trying to do any good at all
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
Incidentally, I think William has by and large got it right because, whilst I don't particularly agree with everything he says, he doesn't have the same confidence or self-belief issues that Charles does.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Transparently clever, but also insincere.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
We all know this.
As if Rishi, Suella and your other crushes are anything but cynical grifters.
How many have you had this evening so far?
You know I'm right about Starmer. He lied under Corbyn. He lied to the members to get to be Labour leader. He's now lying to the electorate to become PM. He's a tedious tactical triangulator.
You absolutely don't know what you're going to get with Sir Keir Starmer.
Very much the same that was said 30 years or so ago about Blair (who got elected first in 1983 on a Nuclear Disarmament, quit NATO, abolish the Lords etc manifesto) or Wilson 30 years before that, or Attlee 30 years or so before that.
It is just the usual Tory smear of a Labour leader. I am the opposite, as I do believe him, which is why I won't vote for him.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
I think though that we underestimate how embedded slavery was in our economy. It wasn't easy to pick and choose about participating.
The mill hands in Lancashire, the iron workers in the Midlands, the consumers of rum and tobacco all were parts of the economy that rested on the backs of slaves.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
We can also be sure the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, will be as hopeless in Opposition as they were from 1997-2005.
Very interesting insight in to the late-Thatcher period from John Redwood - relating to the journey toward the ERM
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/ "I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
You would have thought so but Liz and Kwasi tested that to destruction.
I suspect Charles' interest in slavery comes in large part from his role as Head of the Commonwealth. He looks to take that role seriously. Bear in mind the Commonwealth were largely the enslaved.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
@ydoethur would know more, but although formal slavery went in the 11th century, for many inhabitants of these isles, there was still significant bondage. Being a villein meant rather limited rights. It took the Black Death and later revolts to end the feudal system.
Comments
Or something.
If the Tories proposed to withdraw from the ECHR but a small rebellion of backbenchers prevented it, it would still be held against the party leadership that proposed it would it not? It might not be fair to hold it against the leadership of the party in 10 years time, depending on what stance they take, but that they didn't achieve it through no intention of their own is relevant.
Someone might be seeking to be more authoritarian even if they don't manage it. I don't buy that Labour are inherently more so than the Tories, but those examples given definitely showed they had that tendency at the time.
You seem to have forgotten the Blunkett-Straw years.
In other news, it doesn't look like the Rwanda policy has deterred anyone. 638 arrivals in 16 small boats in the last two days:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
Ironic that if labour had had its way, we would all have had ID cards, so no issues for proof of ID to vote.
SNP turmoil: Humza Yousaf to 'explore' whether SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees
Humza Yousaf has said he is "exploring" whether the SNP will pay Peter Murrell's legal fees.
Scotland needs to go into special measures or something.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
If. If. If...
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1644019358761361417
I mean, points for boldness. But it sounds like they think it's easy. SKS himself must know it's not.
“There is a perception that you’re lazy or unable to do the work,” one activist said. “People don’t even realize that they have that bias.”
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1643976934098092035
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
Sounds like the beginnings of speadsheet policy-making à la G Brown (cf 'lifted out of poverty')
Sadly we’re out of space really for those other models, and now people under the age of 40 can’t afford to buy a house or pay rent. London, and by extension, Britain, is basically suffocating its economy to death.
Below is the first Google image result for “mansion block”.
There is a while till the GE but this is a very bad position to be in this far out. Better than pre-1997 but far worse than on the run-ins to 1992 or 2015. It makes the chances of securing a position to allow the Govt to call the election in Spring 2024 very dubious IMHO.
What other AI bits can I play with?
You don't own the property, and you're on the hook for unlimited service charges.
Look at how the market for flats has underperformed against the housing market in recent years - people voting with their feet, as the leasehold scandal has gained much wider recognition post Grenfell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65207784
Not just @ydoethur then.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Charles should know better. Unfortunately, he doesn't and he only surrounds himself with those who won't challenge him.
He's saying all the right stuff but unlike Blair - who we could all believe actually believed it - this is not the case with Starmer who is a pretty typical North London lefty lawyer who is simply saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to get the crown.
We all know this.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
It’s sad, but the issue is the British media.
I would imagine most voters in the area would prefer them to be housed in a disused military base than in local hotels.
You know I'm right about Starmer. He lied under Corbyn. He lied to the members to get to be Labour leader. He's now lying to the electorate to become PM. He's a tedious tactical triangulator.
You absolutely don't know what you're going to get with Sir Keir Starmer.
His thinking goes no deeper than that.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
At about age 13, she was sold into a non-consensual marriage to Toussaint Charbonneau, a Quebecois trapper. He had also bought another young Shoshone girl, known as Otter Woman, for a wife. Charbonneau was variously reported to have purchased both girls from the Hidatsa, or to have won Sacagawea while gambling."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea
(Charboneau and Sacajawea were guides to the (1804-1806) Lewis and Clark expedition.)
If any of her descendants had survived -- and that seems unlikely -- who would owe them reparations? And how much?
(Her story, with its elements of tragedy is not unique. Many Indian tribes stole adolescent girls and women from other tribes, and even from whites. Do the descendants of these girls and young women deserve reparations? What if the descendants are also descended from their captors, as would often be the case?)
In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
OK, Lincoln isn't too far away but there's not some vast reservoir of jobs for everyone to move to. Some development would probably be welcomed, and sooner rather than later. If it is left for any length of time the place will be hollowed out.
I haven't seen the plans though. Would the centre use up the entire airfield? It is quite large.
The skillful thing to do would be to find a diplomatic way to check it, and hold the line.
We all know it happened in the UK before its abolition. This is a precursor to a hustle.
Whether it comes to the Crown jewels, slavery, the institutions of the British state, or even his role as monarch and head of the commonwealth realms Charles is deeply embarrassed to be monarch and his response to any challenge is, "Well, you have a very good point and I agree with. Not sure i particularly like it or the role myself. How would you like me to concede to you?"
That only invites more.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
So what?
It is just the usual Tory smear of a Labour leader. I am the opposite, as I do believe him, which is why I won't vote for him.
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/
"I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
Ofsted doesn’t not meet that need. If anything it’s actually a negative influence.
The mill hands in Lancashire, the iron workers in the Midlands, the consumers of rum and tobacco all were parts of the economy that rested on the backs of slaves.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.