And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
Is it that wrong though? The MoE in predicting a seat count out by 30 or so is tiny.
The remarkable thing is just how John Curtice gets it so right, time after time. And that's after you take into account that he undercooked the Tory seat count by 14 in 2015, and Labour by 12 in 2019.
Stand to be corrected, but I think the first exit poll as devised by John Curtice and his team was 2005.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
It was one of the reason, backed by statements made, in the official reports, on Rotherham etc.
It’s about targets and policies, not actual behaviour. Just as in parts of social services the “well being” of the children has mutated from protecting the children in care, to avoiding doing anything that might give rise to an allegation of abuse. See the Winston Smith blog.
Going after certain of the grooming gangs would have meant arresting a lot of men from a small portion of some communities.
Indeed, after the floodgates opened on this, concern was voiced in social services and elsewhere that the level of arrests was excessive and “risked community relations”.
It’s not that the people involved are not actually full KKK members - they just don’t want to be documented as a bit “racialist”
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
It claims that because of 'supermarket rationing' you cannot buy more than three tins of tomatoes at one time.
When you have such blatant lies being spouted it suggests the whole program is worthless.
I spent five years working right by the 'Ekin Road' estate, lived just up the road from it, and . I don't really recognise the portrayal - though they didn't mention the bricks that were thrown through our office windows once or twice...
As the topic has come up, perhaps we can remind ourselves how well regarded the Paedophile Information Exchange was among some of the great and good of the Labour Party.
thanks for reminding us that the tories are perfectly happy to give it out but can't take it when it's done to them.
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
Is it that wrong though? The MoE in predicting a seat count out by 30 or so is tiny.
The remarkable thing is just how John Curtice gets it so right, time after time. And that's after you take into account that he undercooked the Tory seat count by 14 in 2015, and Labour by 12 in 2019.
Stand to be corrected, but I think the first exit poll as devised by John Curtice and his team was 2005.
Hmm. I wonder if the new boundaries will make it less accurate? There's been a remarkable number of GE's with the same constituencies to extrapolate.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
I recall someone telling me once there was an organisation that basically was church without God, for people who wanted hymns and chatting on a Sunday.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
I recall someone telling me once there was an organisation that basically was church without God, for people who wanted hymns and chatting on a Sunday.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
Bored, uninformed, knowing the ghostly silt Dispersed, yet tending to this cross of ground Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt So long and equably what since is found Only in separation – marriage, and birth, And death, and thoughts of these – for whom was built This special shell? For, though I've no idea What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth, It pleases me to stand in silence here;
A serious house on serious earth it is, In whose blent air all our compulsions meet, Are recognised, and robed as destinies. And that much never can be obsolete, Since someone will forever be surprising A hunger in himself to be more serious, And gravitating with it to this ground, Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in, If only that so many dead lie round.
Written in about 1954, and indicating the soon complete collapse of church and church going, Larkin is all three of prophetic, right and wrong.
By the way both atheism and theism are completely tolerable as long as you only pay attention to people who believe they might be wrong
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
Ah, so that’s why that black girl wouldn’t go out with me all those years ago. I was sure she really fancied me! Memories, memories!
It was startling in the nastiness of it - I overheard some of the abuse. She admitted, eventually, that this happened nearly every time we out.
One of my very distant relatives married a Jamaican girl. His grandmother, my cousin was very ambivalent about it! However, she's dead now so I don't get to talk to her about it.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
That's very true. My wife is black and we got married in the west of Ireland. The townsfolk stared at her and her Mum the whole time. Not because they were proactively racist but because it was such a rare sight.
However, I think Burchill's point still holds. The reason why the BAME population is so high in the UK is because of the number of mixed-race children from (usually) white women and Asian / Black males, and most of those women came from working class backgrounds. You only have to take a walk around Hampstead and Highgate - to take the most cliched examples of North London liberalism - to see that mixed race couples are very much of a rarity: they are overwhelmingly white as are their kids (naturally...). The trope of thicko white racists in many cases - if not all - does not hold when it comes to inter-racial affairs and, based on the evidence looking around, you would argue it is the middle classes that have a far greater aversion to it.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
“white flight”, in London, has quite a lot to do with differential house prices.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
It claims that because of 'supermarket rationing' you cannot buy more than three tins of tomatoes at one time.
When you have such blatant lies being spouted it suggests the whole program is worthless.
I spent five years working right by the 'Ekin Road' estate, lived just up the road from it, and . I don't really recognise the portrayal - though they didn't mention the bricks that were thrown through our office windows once or twice...
The annoying thing is that issues such as inequality, unaffordable housing, cost of living, deprivation in touristy areas are all worth learning about.
But France24 really tried to turn everything up to 11 in that report and made it worthless.
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
As the topic has come up, perhaps we can remind ourselves how well regarded the Paedophile Information Exchange was among some of the great and good of the Labour Party.
thanks for reminding us that the tories are perfectly happy to give it out but can't take it when it's done to them.
Still true re PIE though.
Are you try to have your CAKE and eat it, as well?
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
Trump had suggested it back in his Administration, When it leaked, the Mexican authorities apparently started to get a bit more proactive on dealing with the issue...
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
I recall someone telling me once there was an organisation that basically was church without God, for people who wanted hymns and chatting on a Sunday.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
It was one of the reason, backed by statements made, in the official reports, on Rotherham etc.
It’s about targets and policies, not actual behaviour. Just as in parts of social services the “well being” of the children has mutated from protecting the children in care, to avoiding doing anything that might give rise to an allegation of abuse. See the Winston Smith blog.
Going after certain of the grooming gangs would have meant arresting a lot of men from a small portion of some communities.
Indeed, after the floodgates opened on this, concern was voiced in social services and elsewhere that the level of arrests was excessive and “risked community relations”.
It’s not that the people involved are not actually full KKK members - they just don’t want to be documented as a bit “racialist”
And once you start tolerating something it has a tendency to increase.
Whatever the crime there will be a certain number who commit it under any circumstance but a much larger number who will do so if they think it has been effectively decriminalised.
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
And there is the problem
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
It hasn't been lost. You may not like the posters but they are entirely in keeping with the electoral strategy that has won several elections for the Cons not to mention Brexit. The posters are calling out a failure of government policy and I think Labour have correctly identified that some voters are rightly concerned that for some serious crimes people don't go to prison, or don't go to prison for long enough. The poster is tugging at that concern in a very effective way by focussing on crimes against children. As far as I can see no-one is actually disputing the number in the poster.
The number in the poster is overshadowed by the innuendo of the poster.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
Why does race only ever matter to the Left when it's minorities being victimised/persecuted/disadvantaged by the evil right-wing White people?
Both Left and Right seek to further their agendas. The agenda of the Left is to spotlight the disadvantage faced by minorities. The agenda of the Right is to focus discontent about society onto minorities. This leads to both sides in the eyes of the other appearing to 'bang on about race'.
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
We are of course dealing with translations but at a diplomatic level Macron seems to have made a complete fool of himself. It also takes more front than Brighton to talk about European strategic autonomy whilst rely so strongly on the US for European security and having 50 FRENCH CEOs with him. But maybe the latter point is the key. Was it all about money? Or otherwise the dying cry of old Europe aka the Franco-German alliance? They may have decided that if they can't lead Europe anymore they'll just focus on mercantilism.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
So called white flight has quite a lot to do with differential house prices.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex etc.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
It was one of the reason, backed by statements made, in the official reports, on Rotherham etc.
It’s about targets and policies, not actual behaviour. Just as in parts of social services the “well being” of the children has mutated from protecting the children in care, to avoiding doing anything that might give rise to an allegation of abuse. See the Winston Smith blog.
Going after certain of the grooming gangs would have meant arresting a lot of men from a small portion of some communities.
Indeed, after the floodgates opened on this, concern was voiced in social services and elsewhere that the level of arrests was excessive and “risked community relations”.
It’s not that the people involved are not actually full KKK members - they just don’t want to be documented as a bit “racialist”
And once you start tolerating something it has a tendency to increase.
Whatever the crime there will be a certain number who commit it under any circumstance but a much larger number who will do so if they think it has been effectively decriminalised.
“I am hanging you for stealing a horse, so that other men are discouraged from stealing horses” - or some such.
Just been having a local LibDem chat. We're in a positive mood, though really want to see Sir Ed Nice actually say something anyone can remember, and Alex Cole-Edinburgh to listen to the party who isn't in his area in Edinburgh.
At the same time, the prospect of a fractured SNP and a tired Tory effort does offer up opportunity for someone else up here in the sticks. Problem of course is that we actually need to stand for something ourselves. And the leadership on either side of the wall doesn't help.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
We are of course dealing with translations but at a diplomatic level Macron seems to have made a complete fool of himself. It also takes more front than Brighton to talk about European strategic autonomy whilst rely so strongly on the US for European security and having 50 FRENCH CEOs with him. But maybe the latter point is the key. Was it all about money? Or otherwise the dying cry of old Europe aka the Franco-German alliance? They may have decided that if they can't lead Europe anymore they'll just focus on mercantilism.
The presence of 50 CEOs, surely suggests that the primary reason for the trip was economic, and the diplomatic part of the trip was centered around not saying anything that might upset his hosts?
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
And there is the problem
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
It hasn't been lost. You may not like the posters but they are entirely in keeping with the electoral strategy that has won several elections for the Cons not to mention Brexit. The posters are calling out a failure of government policy and I think Labour have correctly identified that some voters are rightly concerned that for some serious crimes people don't go to prison, or don't go to prison for long enough. The poster is tugging at that concern in a very effective way by focussing on crimes against children. As far as I can see no-one is actually disputing the number in the poster.
The number in the poster is overshadowed by the innuendo of the poster.
Also, for them to work, Labour would need to have a very strong message on crime & justice that's backed by the public.
I don't say that can't work. But I don't think the average voter thinks Starmer is a hardliner.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
It depends what the priority is. The Conservatives can never be more than a minority in Scotland, with a realistic prospect in maybe 14 seats, maximum. Labour have a realistic prospect in maybe 40 seats. (I’m not claiming that either party will win that number, those are maximums.)
Tactical voting would boost both the Conservative total and the Labour total.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Cambridge, an attractive, prosperous city, with full employment seems a strange choice.
Almost everywhere has full employment. If you want to show inequality surely you'd have to choose somewhere prosperous? Nae point deeing it in Ashington, like.
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
If you're a committed unionist to such an extent you'd rather there not be another indyref than a weak minority Labour government... But to be honest if the difference between the Tories remaining in office is them having a handful of seats of Scotland or not you're at best looking an incredibly weak Labour government utterly reliant on the SNP. I can't see how such a government would last five years if it's on 270 seats or less.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Well even the Daily Mail is happy to link Tories and Savile
"How many more times must Jimmy Savile be overlooked for a knighthood? cried Maggie T"
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
There is a huge distinction between high up policy (trying not to be racist) and what actually happens on day to day encounters with the public (often racist). Resources are set in the trying not to be racist category.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Male officers are not allowed into womens safe places are they?
Male officers are not allowed to assault women, or sexually harass them, or use police resources to find information on them, or all sorts of things that have nonetheless been going on.
No-one should be assaulting anyone. I was trying to understand the impact of different things we hear about in the news. If someone has actual numbers, I’m all ears, but I’ve seen much more reporting of serving police officers assaulting women than of trans individuals doing so.
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
We are of course dealing with translations but at a diplomatic level Macron seems to have made a complete fool of himself. It also takes more front than Brighton to talk about European strategic autonomy whilst rely so strongly on the US for European security and having 50 FRENCH CEOs with him. But maybe the latter point is the key. Was it all about money? Or otherwise the dying cry of old Europe aka the Franco-German alliance? They may have decided that if they can't lead Europe anymore they'll just focus on mercantilism.
The combined effect of the Ukraine war and AUKUS is in some ways a new Suez crisis for France because it puts in question decades of foreign policy. Macron is trying desparately to resurrect their previous ambition to to use the EU as a counterweight to the US, but this doesn't look tenable.
I live across the road from Lord Napier, the Baron of Magdala; a village in Abyssinia (now Amba Mariam in Ethiopia)
The title was given to his great-great-grandfather, who after many years in the army (he served a total of 62 years!) in India and China, was sent to Abyssinia to fight Emperor Tewodros who was holding Protestant missionaries hostage
At Easter (Good Friday to Easter Monday) 1868, he defeated Tewodros at the Battle of Magdala with only two British casualties
The only relic that remains in Amba Mariam of Tewodros's empire is a huge cannon called Sebastopol, named after the Crimean capital
It was bought by Tewodros to defend his Magdala fortress, but it proved too large and heavy to raise up to the village, and has remained half-buried nearby ever since
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
One thought about the Labour posters. For those with no interest much in politics and a .3 nanosecond attention span, the posters themselves are slightly confusing. It takes time (over a second) to work out who and what they are for, and who and what they are against.
People with interest and attention span (a minority) will study them mostly about what effect they have on other people. Which is more or less nil.
What will have an effect is the lengthy discussion in which people like Chris Bryant have free air time to say the Tories are not very good at running any single aspect of the country. Which is true.
Any genuine discussion of course would be the logistics, legislation, implementation and costs of Labour doing X better then the Tories. On this, do not place bets or hold your breath.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
So called white flight has quite a lot to do with differential house prices.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex etc.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
The Senior Management Team bang on about it non stop. While strip searching a ton of black female teenagers, without proper safeguarding, goes on. Etc.
Chief Constable Savage is alive, well, and has passed all his diversity courses. He now oversees a program of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people, mostly. At anti-racism demos.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
One thought about the Labour posters. For those with no interest much in politics and a .3 nanosecond attention span, the posters themselves are slightly confusing. It takes time (over a second) to work out who and what they are for, and who and what they are against.
People with interest and attention span (a minority) will study them mostly about what effect they have on other people. Which is more or less nil.
What will have an effect is the lengthy discussion in which people like Chris Bryant have free air time to say the Tories are not very good at running any single aspect of the country. Which is true.
Any genuine discussion of course would be the logistics, legislation, implementation and costs of Labour doing X better then the Tories. On this, do not place bets or hold your breath.
Indeed so.
It strikes me as a poster written by someone who really hates the Tories, which is a classic Labour mistake down the ages.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
That's part of the rebuttal game being played here. Claim the ads are saying something outrageous that's easily denied and ignore the reading of them where, frankly, Sunak, Braverman et al have a lot of explaining to do.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
There is a huge distinction between high up policy (trying not to be racist) and what actually happens on day to day encounters with the public (often racist). Resources are set in the trying not to be racist category.
Its two separate issues.
“There is a huge distinction between high up policy (trying not to beappear racist) … “
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
Yeah but consider the alternative. Would the Absolute Boy really have been capable of getting anything through parliament or keep his government lasting for five years on 262 seats? He'd needed to somehow appease BOTH the SNP and Lib Dems or he wouldn't get any legislation passed. I don't think there's a chance in hell he could have made it work and the Tories would probably have been back within a year.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
The most likely knife edge would be between Labour governing alone and Labour governing with assistance.
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
No it wouldn't be idiotic, as each and every one of those SNP MPs will be lining up to put Starmer in Downing Street, rather than Sunak.
If that isn't your priority in a UK GE, then you are a funny sort of Labour supporter.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
We are of course dealing with translations but at a diplomatic level Macron seems to have made a complete fool of himself. It also takes more front than Brighton to talk about European strategic autonomy whilst rely so strongly on the US for European security and having 50 FRENCH CEOs with him. But maybe the latter point is the key. Was it all about money? Or otherwise the dying cry of old Europe aka the Franco-German alliance? They may have decided that if they can't lead Europe anymore they'll just focus on mercantilism.
The combined effect of the Ukraine war and AUKUS is in some ways a new Suez crisis for France because it puts in question decades of foreign policy. Macron is trying desparately to resurrect their previous ambition to to use the EU as a counterweight to the US, but this doesn't look tenable.
On the contrary, it seems to me essential. The US's actions lately, even excluding the possibility of Trump coming back in (which will accelerate the process), have seemed to me to have been very much to shore up its domestic economy, make sure it's armed to the teeth, and withdraw behind a wall. The way it has meekly let China become the Middle East power-broker being one example.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Essex golliwogs are hard bastards. Worse than wild boar, they are.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
It might not make that connection to you, but it does to me and other floating voters who are the target of the ad, not Tory loyalists.
I don't actually have much faith in or expectation of Labour changing things much for the better. They probably will do a bit better at the margins but doubt they will make the radical change needed. Still very much time for a change.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Essex golliwogs are hard bastards. Worse than wild boar, they are.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Thanks! Yes, that's the trouble with nuance, and it's sometimes deliberate, to engage and perhaps mislead different audiences. The translator's objections seem a bit overblown. But the sentence about Europe not getting too involved everywhere is striking, and I do read it as meaning that he feels Europe shouldn't be that engaged in Taiwan. Possibly the subtext is "Conversely China shouldn't be too engaged in Russia's war on Ukraine"m though I may be reading too much into it roo.
We are of course dealing with translations but at a diplomatic level Macron seems to have made a complete fool of himself. It also takes more front than Brighton to talk about European strategic autonomy whilst rely so strongly on the US for European security and having 50 FRENCH CEOs with him. But maybe the latter point is the key. Was it all about money? Or otherwise the dying cry of old Europe aka the Franco-German alliance? They may have decided that if they can't lead Europe anymore they'll just focus on mercantilism.
The combined effect of the Ukraine war and AUKUS is in some ways a new Suez crisis for France because it puts in question decades of foreign policy. Macron is trying desparately to resurrect their previous ambition to to use the EU as a counterweight to the US, but this doesn't look tenable.
France has its problems, Britain has its problems. Some overlap but some are quite unique to each country.
The collapse in public service provision and infrastructure crumbling in plain sight are definitely UK problems - everything looks fresh and works well here. The economy is doing OK too.
But the biggest disaster I have noticed for a few years and which is the worst I can remember on this trip is the collapse of biodiversity. With the annoying exception of wasps and hornets insect life seems to be falling off a cliff. Birdsong is intermittent and muted. On a walk in the spring woodlands yesterday it was completely silent for minutes at a time. The silent spring of Rachel Carson seems to be here.
Scientists seem to think it’s down to pesticide use on monocultures. So it then affects the whole country including areas like here (the Clunysois) where pretty much everything is organic bocage. Oddly pesticide use has been going up year on year. I really thought this was something we’d got better at since the 70s but apparently not. Deeply depressing.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
It might not make that connection to you, but it does to me and other floating voters who are the target of the ad, not Tory loyalists.
I don't actually have much faith in or expectation of Labour changing things much for the better. They probably will do a bit better at the margins but doubt they will make the radical change needed. Still very much time for a change.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
The most likely knife edge would be between Labour governing alone and Labour governing with assistance.
I'm more pessimistic about the next election. I don't think a Labour majority is likely, and what primarily concerns me is whether the Tories lose enough seats to allow a Labour minority or Labour-led coalition to be formed. So I am more fixated on Tory seats in Scotland than many others.
I will be very happy to be totally wrong, and see a stonking Labour majority.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
"We're actually supposed to call it "the service" now. Official vocab guidelines state that "force" is too aggressive."
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
Any Labourite who thinks the SNP can be trusted is being foolish. Is it really in their interests for a Labour government to be successful and being perceived as popular in Scotland?
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
That's very true. My wife is black and we got married in the west of Ireland. The townsfolk stared at her and her Mum the whole time. Not because they were proactively racist but because it was such a rare sight.
However, I think Burchill's point still holds. The reason why the BAME population is so high in the UK is because of the number of mixed-race children from (usually) white women and Asian / Black males, and most of those women came from working class backgrounds. You only have to take a walk around Hampstead and Highgate - to take the most cliched examples of North London liberalism - to see that mixed race couples are very much of a rarity: they are overwhelmingly white as are their kids (naturally...). The trope of thicko white racists in many cases - if not all - does not hold when it comes to inter-racial affairs and, based on the evidence looking around, you would argue it is the middle classes that have a far greater aversion to it.
I live in Highgate. I am very middle class. I had friends round for Easter last night, also middle class. They’re a mixed race couple. I will have to tell them that they are such a rarity!
I think the last time I was hosted by a couple for dinner, it was another mixed race middle class couple, albeit in Barnet, not Highgate, so clearly this doesn’t disprove your well-evidenced argument.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
I recall someone telling me once there was an organisation that basically was church without God, for people who wanted hymns and chatting on a Sunday.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
It might not make that connection to you, but it does to me and other floating voters who are the target of the ad, not Tory loyalists.
I don't actually have much faith in or expectation of Labour changing things much for the better. They probably will do a bit better at the margins but doubt they will make the radical change needed. Still very much time for a change.
You are not a floating voter.
Not for this election anymore, sure, but yes I am pretty confident I will vote all of Tory, Labour, LD again, probably green too.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
"We're actually supposed to call it "the service" now. Official vocab guidelines state that "force" is too aggressive."
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
In Scotland, both Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat the SNP. It is more important to them than defeating each other. In the UK generally, Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat each other. The SNP are irrelevant. As neither Labour nor the Conservatives have separate parties in Scotland, despite what they tell voters, UK priorities will always outweigh Scottish priorities.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
This is why we need a rival local police service, sheriffs, and let them compete to clear up crime - the losing agency gets its funding cut. Make the sheriffs elected for good measure.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Essex golliwogs are hard bastards. Worse than wild boar, they are.
Now you are just being countyist.
Knew a chap, Essex golliwogs broke into his basement. Rigby .416 didn’t stop ‘em.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
This is why we need a rival local police service, sheriffs, and let them compete to clear up crime - the losing agency gets its funding cut. Make the sheriffs elected for good measure.
{Joe Arpaio has entered the chat and stolen most of it}
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
"We're actually supposed to call it "the service" now. Official vocab guidelines state that "force" is too aggressive."
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
Yes they were, but the difference is the SLab are not going to be gaining at the Tories expense in Scotland, at least probably not. If the Tories are only 10 seats ahead of Labour overall, they have already lost, no matter if Labour have 5-10 more in Scotland from the SNP.
Whereas if the Tories are are on 315 or so again, then they may be able to cling on, and Lab winning 5-10 from the SNP again makes no difference.
The key is how many seats the Tories can win - if they can hold on to enough in England then Scotland becomes irrelevant. And a unionist recovery which sees Slab win a few more might also help the Tories retain a few too.
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. This was more than the total number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, it added. Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November, costing the government tens of millions lost tax receipts.
Many have moved to Switzerland, where taxes are much lower. They include billionaire fisher turned industrial tycoon Kjell Inge Røkke who moved to the Italian-speaking canton of Lugano, close to his favoured hangout Lake Como and fashion capital Milan.
Røkke, 64, is the fourth-richest Norwegian, with an estimated fortune of about NOK 19.6bn (£1.5bn). In an open letter, he said: “I’ve chosen Lugano as my new residence – it is neither the cheapest nor has the lowest taxes – but in return, it is a great place with a central location in Europe … For those close to the company and to me, I am just a click away.”
His relocation will cost Norway about NOK 175m in lost tax revenue a year. Last year, Røkke was the country’s highest taxed individual. Dagens Næringsliv calculated that he has paid about NOK 1.5bn in tax since 2008.
His move to Switzerland follows a relatively small increase in tax aimed at the country’s super-rich, who face wealth taxes at both the local and state level. That includes a municipal tax of 0.7% on assets in excess of NOK 1.7m for individuals, or NOK 3.4m for couples. There is also a state wealth tax rate of 0.3% on assets above NOK 1.7m. In November, the government raised the state rate to 0.4% for assets above NOK 20m for individuals, and NOK 40m couples, taking the maximum wealth tax rate to 1.1%.
Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn…
Thanks - often claims are made about the impact of taxation on people’s movements, but it is useful to have some data to see the impact in practice.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
In which case you'd think there'd be unanimity - police don't want to do it, and politicians should know that it doesn't help any.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings will get cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Oh yes. The Police aren't any different to any other self-interested publicly funded organisations, IMHO.
They want an easy life, to follow the path of least resistance, and to advance their careers and respect amongst their peers - for that, persecuting motorists and investigating social media 'crimes' are the best routes.
It's much harder to fight real nasty crime, and comes at a much higher personal risk to yourself.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
*Some* of them are like that.
Apparently, in police jargon they are known as Eternal Flames.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
This is why we need a rival local police service, sheriffs, and let them compete to clear up crime - the losing agency gets its funding cut. Make the sheriffs elected for good measure.
{Joe Arpaio has entered the chat and stolen most of it}
Any Labourite who thinks the SNP can be trusted is being foolish. Is it really in their interests for a Labour government to be successful and being perceived as popular in Scotland?
But on the other hand why should any pro-indy voter vote Labour on the basis of trust, after the promises of 2014?
The Better Together episode is acutely toxic for Scottish Labour - hence their desperation to play its revival down. Indeed one of us on PB speculated the other day this tactical voting stuff from Mr Ross was a deliberate attempt from the Tories to revive that episode.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
But racism, whilst deplorable (and more importantly stupid), should not (in my opinion anyway) be illegal.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
I recall someone telling me once there was an organisation that basically was church without God, for people who wanted hymns and chatting on a Sunday.
That describes a lot of CofE services (or it used to at least). Weekday evensong somewhere with a good choir would be my recommendation.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Essex golliwogs are hard bastards. Worse than wild boar, they are.
It’s all those Londoners cashing in on the value of their council flats.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
That's exactly what it is.
Like so many of your posts they start well and then you dismiss it and draw totally the wrong conclusion. Because it doesn't accord with what you want to be true.
The reason the £350m posters worked was because, net of rebate and 'subsidies' from Brussels, we still gave a lot of money to the EU each week. All contesting it did was draw extra attention to it - £181m was just as big as £350m to the average Joe.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Friends of nonces = of course not. Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
The Tories have a genuine record to go after with their cuts in crime & justice budgets post 2010.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
Discussions on criminal justice tend to focus on sentencing and Bobbies on the Beat, neither of which are important.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
The very last thing Bobbies want to do is go On The Beat.
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
In which case you'd think there'd be unanimity - police don't want to do it, and politicians should know that it doesn't help any.
Some police absolutely do the right thing.
But, there aren't enough of them and they aren't rewarded for it in the force.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
On topic, I think there are too many variables in Scottish politics to be able to see where this one goes:
1. Boundary changes make for some interesting new constituencies. Using mine as an example, I go from being forced to vote SNP Corruption Party to remove Tory Corruption Party from Banff and Buchan, to actually being able to campaign and vote for the LDs as hopefully competitive in the new Aberdeenshire Central seat. 2. So who needs to be tactically voted for is still rooted in the existing constituencies. Until the new ones are implemented and get their head around them, its hard to tell how people will vote to remove x. They don't even know who x is yet! 3. The piling up of party problems. The SNP are corrupt and lead a poor government. The Tories are massively corrupt and lead a terrible government. Tactically voting for either of these two would be madness. Think about it (as I did), realise it's a step too far, then think again. 4. The antipathy of tribal voters. With the SNP sinking fast the threat of independence once again feels way off. So the threat to the union isn't really there. So unionists having to vote for the unpalatable to avoid the unthinkable isn't needed. Lets put it this way, I think it would be a very big assumption for ScotCons to think Labour voters will tactically vote Tory because the SNP are incompetent and corrupt...
The SConservatives don't need the votes of those on the left who have previously tactically voted for the SNP, they just need them to switch back to SLabour or the SLibdems in key seats in the North East and elsewhere in Scotland. I also really think you underestimate the antipathy towards the SNP and Independence of SLabour or SLibdems voters who have already in the recent past tactically voted for the SConservatives in key SConservative/SNP marginal seats, especially when you consider the current policy direction of the SNP/SGreen Government that Humza Yousaf seems determined to continue...
you underestimate how hated the Tories are apart from masochists and unprincipled or no morals people.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Look at the police
1) Senior Management bang on about diversity. 2) All officers have to do multiple diversity courses 3) various organisations and initiatives within the police force to “stamp out racism”. Conferences and posters…. 4) Driving while black is a thing 5) Teenage black girls being strip searched without *legally required* safeguarding 6) etc
Organisations tend towards bike shedding. That is, when tasked with something complex like getting rid of racism, or building a nuclear power station, they will do the easy bit. Like building a bike shed.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
That’s a strange view. The police don’t normally attend incidents knowing whether a crime has been committed or not. They go because a crime may have been or is being committed. And, of course, there are all sorts of other functions the police carry out relating to public safety or order.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
Presumably the Tories in Westminster are worried about Labour winning a large number of seats in Scotland that would be bad for them, since Labour is the rival at UK level. OGH doesn't address this point for some reason. Costing the Tories a few seats in Scotland is a price worth paying if it means Labour gets fewer in Westminster.
A handful of seats in Scotland is quite unlikely to be the thing that swings it. If the tories are doing well enough to hold on to power then a few seats in Scotland to Labour wont matter given with no viable coalition partners the Tories need to be largest party by some distance to hold on.
Tory seats in Scotland were crucial in keeping May in No. 10.
Yes they were, but the difference is the SLab are not going to be gaining at the Tories expense in Scotland, at least probably not. If the Tories are only 10 seats ahead of Labour overall, they have already lost, no matter if Labour have 5-10 more in Scotland from the SNP.
Whereas if the Tories are are on 315 or so again, then they may be able to cling on, and Lab winning 5-10 from the SNP again makes no difference.
The key is how many seats the Tories can win - if they can hold on to enough in England then Scotland becomes irrelevant. And a unionist recovery which sees Slab win a few more might also help the Tories retain a few too.
Comments
It’s about targets and policies, not actual behaviour. Just as in parts of social services the “well being” of the children has mutated from protecting the children in care, to avoiding doing anything that might give rise to an allegation of abuse. See the Winston Smith blog.
Going after certain of the grooming gangs would have meant arresting a lot of men from a small portion of some communities.
Indeed, after the floodgates opened on this, concern was voiced in social services and elsewhere that the level of arrests was excessive and “risked community relations”.
It’s not that the people involved are not actually full KKK members - they just don’t want to be documented as a bit “racialist”
But it isn't so much groups as individuals.
The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex.
In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques.
Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely.
It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out.
Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
I wonder if the new boundaries will make it less accurate?
There's been a remarkable number of GE's with the same constituencies to extrapolate.
Dispersed, yet tending to this cross of ground
Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt
So long and equably what since is found
Only in separation – marriage, and birth,
And death, and thoughts of these – for whom was built
This special shell? For, though I've no idea
What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth,
It pleases me to stand in silence here;
A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognised, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.
Written in about 1954, and indicating the soon complete collapse of church and church going, Larkin is all three of prophetic, right and wrong.
By the way both atheism and theism are completely tolerable as long as you only pay attention to people who believe they might be wrong
However, I think Burchill's point still holds. The reason why the BAME population is so high in the UK is because of the number of mixed-race children from (usually) white women and Asian / Black males, and most of those women came from working class backgrounds. You only have to take a walk around Hampstead and Highgate - to take the most cliched examples of North London liberalism - to see that mixed race couples are very much of a rarity: they are overwhelmingly white as are their kids (naturally...). The trope of thicko white racists in many cases - if not all - does not hold when it comes to inter-racial affairs and, based on the evidence looking around, you would argue it is the middle classes that have a far greater aversion to it.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
But France24 really tried to turn everything up to 11 in that report and made it worthless.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-04-09/ty-article/polls-show-netanyahu-crashing-gantz-far-ahead-lapid-second/00000187-6753-dde0-afb7-7f5337590000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=Content&utm_campaign=daily-brief&utm_content=76387d32e4
Small sample, but still.
https://www.sundayassembly.org/home
Splendid, and the country and world could do with more people meeting and being nice to each other.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
Whatever the crime there will be a certain number who commit it under any circumstance but a much larger number who will do so if they think it has been effectively decriminalised.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex etc.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
A chap “I am hanging you for stealing a horse, so that other men are discouraged from stealing horses” - or some such.
At the same time, the prospect of a fractured SNP and a tired Tory effort does offer up opportunity for someone else up here in the sticks. Problem of course is that we actually need to stand for something ourselves. And the leadership on either side of the wall doesn't help.
For these Labour posters to work they've got to be convinced the Tories are the friends of nonces and that has to resonate in the public's consciousness.
I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
A plane full of executives is a trade mission.
I don't say that can't work. But I don't think the average voter thinks Starmer is a hardliner.
Tactical voting would boost both the Conservative total and the Labour total.
If you want to show inequality surely you'd have to choose somewhere prosperous?
Nae point deeing it in Ashington, like.
But to be honest if the difference between the Tories remaining in office is them having a handful of seats of Scotland or not you're at best looking an incredibly weak Labour government utterly reliant on the SNP. I can't see how such a government would last five years if it's on 270 seats or less.
"How many more times must Jimmy Savile be overlooked for a knighthood? cried Maggie T"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10691805/How-Jimmy-Savile-duped-royals-Bombshell-Netflix-documentary-claims.html
Its two separate issues.
Ineffective on crime = absolutely.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
No-one should be assaulting anyone. I was trying to understand the impact of different things we hear about in the news. If someone has actual numbers, I’m all ears, but I’ve seen much more reporting of serving police officers assaulting women than of trans individuals doing so.
The title was given to his great-great-grandfather, who after many years in the army (he served a total of 62 years!) in India and China, was sent to Abyssinia to fight Emperor Tewodros who was holding Protestant missionaries hostage
At Easter (Good Friday to Easter Monday) 1868, he defeated Tewodros at the Battle of Magdala with only two British casualties
The only relic that remains in Amba Mariam of Tewodros's empire is a huge cannon called Sebastopol, named after the Crimean capital
It was bought by Tewodros to defend his Magdala fortress, but it proved too large and heavy to raise up to the village, and has remained half-buried nearby ever since
People with interest and attention span (a minority) will study them mostly about what effect they have on other people. Which is more or less nil.
What will have an effect is the lengthy discussion in which people like Chris Bryant have free air time to say the Tories are not very good at running any single aspect of the country. Which is true.
Any genuine discussion of course would be the logistics, legislation, implementation and costs of Labour doing X better then the Tories. On this, do not place bets or hold your breath.
Unfortunately, this doesn't do this - nor is it coupled with a commensurate pledge by Labour to restore it, together with the funding to go with it.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
A friend worked as a mortgage advisor - a large chunk of his trade, for a while was people in council blocks selling the flat in London, to get a shiny new house out in Essex etc.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece a while back, lamenting that black people were doing this and “losing their cultural identity” by moving into the countryside.
A chap The Senior Management Team bang on about it non stop. While strip searching a ton of black female teenagers, without proper safeguarding, goes on. Etc.
Chief Constable Savage is alive, well, and has passed all his diversity courses. He now oversees a program of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people, mostly. At anti-racism demos.
It strikes me as a poster written by someone who really hates the Tories, which is a classic Labour mistake down the ages.
Fixed that for you. No charge.
What matters is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted, and honesty among police forces.
If that isn't your priority in a UK GE, then you are a funny sort of Labour supporter.
I don't actually have much faith in or expectation of Labour changing things much for the better. They probably will do a bit better at the margins but doubt they will make the radical change needed. Still very much time for a change.
The collapse in public service provision and infrastructure crumbling in plain sight are definitely UK problems - everything looks fresh and works well here. The economy is doing OK too.
But the biggest disaster I have noticed for a few years and which is the worst I can remember on this trip is the collapse of biodiversity. With the annoying exception of wasps and hornets insect life seems to be falling off a cliff. Birdsong is intermittent and muted. On a walk in the spring woodlands yesterday it was completely silent for minutes at a time. The silent spring of Rachel Carson seems to be here.
Scientists seem to think it’s down to pesticide use on monocultures. So it then affects the whole country including areas like here (the Clunysois) where pretty much everything is organic bocage. Oddly pesticide use has been going up year on year. I really thought this was something we’d got better at since the 70s but apparently not. Deeply depressing.
I will be very happy to be totally wrong, and see a stonking Labour majority.
I think the last time I was hosted by a couple for dinner, it was another mixed race middle class couple, albeit in Barnet, not Highgate, so clearly this doesn’t disprove your well-evidenced argument.
“Here is a cup of tea”
They might be accosted by members of the public and asked to do something.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Video of it here - https://youtu.be/KNoyStVjWFE
Whereas if the Tories are are on 315 or so again, then they may be able to cling on, and Lab winning 5-10 from the SNP again makes no difference.
The key is how many seats the Tories can win - if they can hold on to enough in England then Scotland becomes irrelevant. And a unionist recovery which sees Slab win a few more might also help the Tories retain a few too.
They want an easy life, to follow the path of least resistance, and to advance their careers and respect amongst their peers - for that, persecuting motorists and investigating social media 'crimes' are the best routes.
It's much harder to fight real nasty crime, and comes at a much higher personal risk to yourself.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Apparently, in police jargon they are known as Eternal Flames.
Because they never go out…..
The Better Together episode is acutely toxic for Scottish Labour - hence their desperation to play its revival down. Indeed one of us on PB speculated the other day this tactical voting stuff from Mr Ross was a deliberate attempt from the Tories to revive that episode.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/scottish-tories-accused-trying-revive-anti-independence-coalition-ian-blackford
Like so many of your posts they start well and then you dismiss it and draw totally the wrong conclusion. Because it doesn't accord with what you want to be true.
But, there aren't enough of them and they aren't rewarded for it in the force.
For that, you have to play the game.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
1) Senior Management bang on about diversity.
2) All officers have to do multiple diversity courses
3) various organisations and initiatives within the police force to “stamp out racism”. Conferences and posters….
4) Driving while black is a thing
5) Teenage black girls being strip searched without *legally required* safeguarding
6) etc
Organisations tend towards bike shedding. That is, when tasked with something complex like getting rid of racism, or building a nuclear power station, they will do the easy bit. Like building a bike shed.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.