I can show Owen some TikToks of people who match that labelling praising Osama Bin Ladans Letter to America if he wants....
The such and such community can't contain bigots because they have suffered oppression was tackled by Chris Rock 20+ years ago with his infamous (and very funny) rountine about n#### vs black people.
The world is full of people who have suffered oppression, who are only to happy to put a boot into the face when they get the opportunity.
China's entire "Century of Humiliation" at the hands of foreign powers was about China getting its arse kicked, rather than kicking arse, as was normative.
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas in the West Bank should be treated the same as the Hamas in Gaza, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has said.
Mr Ben Gvir was responding to this morning’s terror attack at a checkpoint in south Jerusalem.
“We need to deal with Hamas in the West Bank, and the Palestinian Authority which has similar views to Hamas and its heads identified with Hamas’s massacre, exactly like we are dealing with Gaza,” he said.
Meanwhile Israeli settlers are still attacking Palestinian homes on the West Bank.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
Labour's revolt against Starmer was rat her larger than the impression given on the news. Unless I've got it wrong over a quarter of the party revolted. That does not bode well.
Theyre all red Tories Roger thats what youre voting for.
I've given up on them. I want to join the Jess Phillips Party or better still the Sanna Marin Party
I'd join any party that Sanna Marin was invited to.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
Whilst I agreed with sacking Braverman and most people seem to agree there is clearly a lot of annoyance/anger at what are seen as anti British/ threatening protests week after week on the streets. If you don't believe there is anything threatening about them, ask why the police don't arrest people on the spot (like they did with the hooligans) and instead try to arrest them afterwards by requesting support from the public. 'Have you seen' pictures put up on twitter.
As one noble Lord has put it, if the police are not able to arrest people on the spot for clear offences then isn't that a reason for banning the marches? A fair point. Not an easy decision but it is one our leaders are there to make. Ignoring it under the notion of 'not wanting to inflame tensions' will not wash anymore.
Again, whilst I am not quite happy with Owen's response (partly the issue of X / Twitter character limits), I think the broad point is just. This seems like an example of people shitposting about their intersecting communities - the LGBTQ+ community and the muslim community - and it leaving that context and being used as a totem to show how homophobic muslims are. There are other, and better, examples of muslim homophobia - but they are typically in line politically with general right wing arguments in favour of homophobia (the kind of "they're too young to know", "it should be the parents decision", "its our religious belief" positions) that you could also apply to literally any people who are homophobic. It feels like these Tweets were taken specifically because they are detached from context and just references "the muslim community" and therefore targets the conversation solely on muslim people, and can ignore other kinds of homophobia, and that muslim homophobia (whilst potentially more prevalent) has essentially the same logic as typical conservative / religious homophobia.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
Surprised at the double use of ‘great’, where’s the elegant variation Boris?
Good to see Johnson and Cameron with good words about each other. Very diplomatic of them both, and good to see unity towards Ukraine.
Their disagreements are only those of two born-to-rule Eton products playing the game of politics. I find it hard to take their 'positions' on things seriously.
So long as they can put aside their domestic political and personal differences, to show a united front on Ukraine and to Zelensky, then it’s all good in my book.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
This is why it would be good if there was a specific Muslim party - as I say upthread
The social beliefs of most Muslims are far too conservative to sit comfortably in the Labour Party. And this is now threatening core beliefs of the Labour Party (gay rights etc)
Yes this would make it harder for Labour to win some constituencies but that’s better than Labour abandoning central beliefs so they can cling on to Bradford North etc
I agree about this - though it would likely mean Labour also embracing PR. Not a problem for me - what's you thought on that ?
I’ve belatedly reached the conclusion that we do need PR. I was always pro FPTP but the two main parties are now so incoherent and jumbled it’s not working any more. Eg the Tory party is no longer a “broad church” - you’ve got evangelicals and actual atheists, in the same pews,as it were
Enough. It is time for PR
I’d also turn the Lords into a Federal chamber for the UK
If you only have minorities and pluralities then you either have incoherent parties (FPTP) or incoherent parliaments (PR) or of course, as at the moment, both.
PR more or less guarantees incoherent parliaments.
There is probably a majority of people who are basically centrists - Christian/Liberal/Social Democrats in European terms. The old system was there were so many of those that they could split into two and take turns while pretending to hate each other. They were called Labour and Conservative.
This is better than only one centrist party, because power corrupts.
We are needing a revolt from the centrists saying 'Down with this sort of thing' 'We support good and dull people on all sides, especially in the middle east' 'Murdering babies is sub-optimal on the whole' 'Please play nicely' 'Don't hold elections while I am knitting woolly hats for oppressed seafarers and organising the Nativity play' 'Only talk about sex in the bedroom, and remember to close the door'.
People need to read Arend Lijphart on this stuff ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Patterns-Democracy-Government-Performance-Thirty-Six/dp/0300172028/ ). What causes a system of coalition governments is having multiple main parties. You can have multiple main parties under FPTP (e.g. India). You can have multiple main parties under PR. If you have a 2-party system, then you get majority governments. You can have a 2-party system under PR (e.g. Malta, South Africa, Ireland until recently).
PR tends to encourage the development of more main parties, but it's only a limited effect. PR doesn't mean parties instantly split into smaller parts. FPTP doesn't mean they never do. The relationship between electoral system and what parties do is indirect.
You also need to consider ordinality, not just proportionality. Ordinality can solve many of the criticisms of PR without necessarily making the system more proportional.
If you really want to avoid coalition government and have "coherent" executives, then pick a presidential system. A president can only be from one party!
Looking back it feels to me like Rishi’s mistake might have been not to be bold and call a GE in April-May this year: to acknowledge the turmoil the government had gone through, and to seek his own mandate as a new broom.
He would still have lost, but perhaps people would have given him some benefit of the doubt and seen him as a safe pair of hands after Truss. He might have salvaged 200-220 seats.
The longer he stays in office the longer anger grows.
I did say when Truss was ejected that for the Tories to do something as extreme as get rid of a second PM in a Parliament they needed a plan and some contrition, and it wouldn’t have been a stupid idea to get someone in as PM in a temporary role while they had a debate about direction and policies that saw them through to a GE in 2023.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
That 21% is definitely two in the blood and one in the mud for the tories. A few of the more excitable types must be starting to think that stringing Sunak up on Barbie's Gallows and a snap election with Jamie Wallis as party leader might not be the worst option at this point.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
If people like Patel are saying that, it may be difficult getting it through the Commons. The Tory majority isn't anything like bulletproof.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
If people like Patel are saying that, it may be difficult getting it through the Commons. The Tory majority isn't anything like bulletproof.
She says she still supports it, but that it "may prove to be harder and longer to implement than suggested".
YouGov this morning has the Tories on their lowest percentage since Truss
CON 21% LAB 44% LD 10% REF 10% GREEN 8%
And a Farage founded party on 10% at its highest level since before Theresa May resigned after failing to get Brexit done or UKIP's 12% in election 2015. Indeed Reform now level with the LDs and ahead of the Greens
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas in the West Bank should be treated the same as the Hamas in Gaza, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has said.
Mr Ben Gvir was responding to this morning’s terror attack at a checkpoint in south Jerusalem.
“We need to deal with Hamas in the West Bank, and the Palestinian Authority which has similar views to Hamas and its heads identified with Hamas’s massacre, exactly like we are dealing with Gaza,” he said.
Ben Gvir is not from PM Netanyahu's Likud party however but ultra nationalist and pro settler Jewish National Front
I always thought that gallows humour was primarily self-deprecatory in nature, rather than being thinly veiled bigotry, but maybe that's my failing for not appreciating another person's sense of humour.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
When you say "blob" presumably you mean "law"?
Its not my opinion - I think the plan is ludicrous. But the idea of having a government stymied by the courts and the Lords and thus unable to enact its policy is exactly the conflict that the right of the party wants.
That's not gallows humour; it's weaponised identity politics.
No - it’s people discussing their own community and joking about it. Do you think they will literally, as queer muslims themselves, go into their muslim communities and argue that muslims shouldn’t vote for Streeting because he is gay? Or are they joking that, in their view, a good cause (a ceasefire) could end up being helped due to bad things in their community (homophobia)?
It would be like an African American Democrat going “how do we make African Americans not vote for Biden in the primary so we can get someone who can beat Trump? We could remind them he’s Catholic”.
YouGov this morning has the Tories on their lowest percentage since Truss
CON 21% LAB 44% LD 10% REF 10% GREEN 8%
And a Farage founded party on 10% at its highest level since before Theresa May resigned after failing to get Brexit done or UKIP's 12% in election 2015. Indeed Reform now level with the LDs and ahead of the Greens
It's not.
The Brexit Party routinely polled in low double-digits right through the autumn of 2019, until the election was called.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
When you say "blob" presumably you mean "law"?
Its not my opinion - I think the plan is ludicrous. But the idea of having a government stymied by the courts and the Lords and thus unable to enact its policy is exactly the conflict that the right of the party wants.
I thought the remaining supporters of the plan were telling us yesterday that the government would be able to overrule the courts because Parliament was sovereign.
Are they going to tell us today that the Executive should be sovereign?
I always thought that gallows humour was primarily self-deprecatory in nature, rather than being thinly veiled bigotry, but maybe that's my failing for not appreciating another person's sense of humour.
Queer muslims joking about muslim homophobia is a form of self-deprecation. The more I read it the whole “why am I cry / laughing at homophobia” is a very clear kind of gallows joke - like “at least the thing that fucks me up is also gonna fuck up someone else I dislike”.
That's not gallows humour; it's weaponised identity politics.
No - it’s people discussing their own community and joking about it. Do you think they will literally, as queer muslims themselves, go into their muslim communities and argue that muslims shouldn’t vote for Streeting because he is gay? Or are they joking that, in their view, a good cause (a ceasefire) could end up being helped due to bad things in their community (homophobia)?
It would be like an African American Democrat going “how do we make African Americans not vote for Biden in the primary so we can get someone who can beat Trump? We could remind them he’s Catholic”.
You appear to be justifying bigotry on an "ends justify the means" basis.
It's that really your argument or have I misunderstood it?
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
If people like Patel are saying that, it may be difficult getting it through the Commons. The Tory majority isn't anything like bulletproof.
She says she still supports it, but that it "may prove to be harder and longer to implement than suggested".
I'm not thinking about Patel specifically though. 20 voting against and another 20 abstentions deprives Sunak of his majority these days, depending on what ex-Con independents do.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
When you say "blob" presumably you mean "law"?
Its not my opinion - I think the plan is ludicrous. But the idea of having a government stymied by the courts and the Lords and thus unable to enact its policy is exactly the conflict that the right of the party wants.
There's a huge difference between the Lords not passing something and the court saying something is illegal.
The courts are just following the law as enacted, to best of their abilities. The Lords is part of the law making process. If they block something then that is their constitutional right and the Commons adjust the Act in question or it does the Parliament Act thing.
Why interesting? Because Deptford is absolute core Labour London heartland, and normally pretty Green-curious too. But in terms of ethnic and religious mix it doesn’t have much of a Muslim population compared with areas North of the river.
Labour gaining votes at the expense of Green suggests there’s no big Gaza-related backlash in the core vote, or at least not in non-Muslim areas.
That's not gallows humour; it's weaponised identity politics.
No - it’s people discussing their own community and joking about it. Do you think they will literally, as queer muslims themselves, go into their muslim communities and argue that muslims shouldn’t vote for Streeting because he is gay? Or are they joking that, in their view, a good cause (a ceasefire) could end up being helped due to bad things in their community (homophobia)?
It would be like an African American Democrat going “how do we make African Americans not vote for Biden in the primary so we can get someone who can beat Trump? We could remind them he’s Catholic”.
You appear to be justifying bigotry on an "ends justify the means" basis.
It's that really your argument or have I misunderstood it?
Is it bigotry when a black person calls another black person the n-word? Is it bigotry when my queer friends call me a fairy? I put this kind of stuff in that kind of group.
This is not people sincerely saying “let’s weaponise muslim homophobia” as much as they are saying “this thing that I hate is at least gonna hurt other people I hate”. They were taken out of context and shown as if this is mainstream typical muslim thought. Whereas this would be the equivalent of the “let them fight” or “two hands meeting in the middle” memes.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
That 21% is definitely two in the blood and one in the mud for the tories. A few of the more excitable types must be starting to think that stringing Sunak up on Barbie's Gallows and a snap election with Jamie Wallis as party leader might not be the worst option at this point.
Bastard. I just googled two in the blood and one in the mud on my work computer.
I always thought that gallows humour was primarily self-deprecatory in nature, rather than being thinly veiled bigotry, but maybe that's my failing for not appreciating another person's sense of humour.
Queer muslims joking about muslim homophobia is a form of self-deprecation. The more I read it the whole “why am I cry / laughing at homophobia” is a very clear kind of gallows joke - like “at least the thing that fucks me up is also gonna fuck up someone else I dislike”.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
When you say "blob" presumably you mean "law"?
Its not my opinion - I think the plan is ludicrous. But the idea of having a government stymied by the courts and the Lords and thus unable to enact its policy is exactly the conflict that the right of the party wants.
There's a huge difference between the Lords not passing something and the court saying something is illegal.
The courts are just following the law as enacted, to best of their abilities. The Lords is part of the law making process. If they block something then that is their constitutional right and the Commons adjust the Act in question or it does the Parliament Act thing.
Again - not my opinions, but the way that some will see it. They see a conspiracy of remainers (Judges). They see that the law is interpreted and that interpretation can have the fingerprints of the beliefs of those doing the interpretation.
I always thought that gallows humour was primarily self-deprecatory in nature, rather than being thinly veiled bigotry, but maybe that's my failing for not appreciating another person's sense of humour.
Queer muslims joking about muslim homophobia is a form of self-deprecation. The more I read it the whole “why am I cry / laughing at homophobia” is a very clear kind of gallows joke - like “at least the thing that fucks me up is also gonna fuck up someone else I dislike”.
Okay. I think I can see what you are driving at.
It would be like this, which would clearly be a shit post if you saw a queer muslim post it:
I thought the left WANTED us to be much more sensitive to stuff around race/sexuality etc. I'm confused.
And I thought the Right keen on freedom of speech...
No-one I know has suggested that this gentleman I've never heard of shouldn't have freedom of speech. But people are quite entitled to judge him for what he says.
Perhaps people have been on to the police, his employer, twitter to get his account taken down? Otherwise it seems as though they are just going to criticise him for his views as is normal in a free society.
That's not gallows humour; it's weaponised identity politics.
No - it’s people discussing their own community and joking about it. Do you think they will literally, as queer muslims themselves, go into their muslim communities and argue that muslims shouldn’t vote for Streeting because he is gay? Or are they joking that, in their view, a good cause (a ceasefire) could end up being helped due to bad things in their community (homophobia)?
It would be like an African American Democrat going “how do we make African Americans not vote for Biden in the primary so we can get someone who can beat Trump? We could remind them he’s Catholic”.
You appear to be justifying bigotry on an "ends justify the means" basis.
It's that really your argument or have I misunderstood it?
Is it bigotry when a black person calls another black person the n-word? Is it bigotry when my queer friends call me a fairy?.
A resounding yes, if that person doesn’t want that terminology to be used to them. If they do, it’s a different story, one I don’t personally align with (this concept of ‘reclaiming’) but I can see the argument.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
That 21% is definitely two in the blood and one in the mud for the tories. A few of the more excitable types must be starting to think that stringing Sunak up on Barbie's Gallows and a snap election with Jamie Wallis as party leader might not be the worst option at this point.
Bastard. I just googled two in the blood and one in the mud on my work computer.
I think I can just about guess what it means but I don't think that is a great reflection on me. The iron rule is if you don't know what a Dura_Ace post means, (a) you don't want to know and (b) you definitely shouldn't look it up at work.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
According to the same article, even Priti Patel is saying it will be difficult to get the "emergency batshit" legislation through the Lords.
But isn't this the point? Its about having the 'blob' stopping the Government from stopping the Boats. Its classic culture wars.
When you say "blob" presumably you mean "law"?
Its not my opinion - I think the plan is ludicrous. But the idea of having a government stymied by the courts and the Lords and thus unable to enact its policy is exactly the conflict that the right of the party wants.
There's a huge difference between the Lords not passing something and the court saying something is illegal.
The courts are just following the law as enacted, to best of their abilities. The Lords is part of the law making process. If they block something then that is their constitutional right and the Commons adjust the Act in question or it does the Parliament Act thing.
The Commons can't now do "the Parliament Act thing" this side of then next general election for legislation that hasn't yet been introduced.
(Yes, technically it can - but it couldn't then fit the election before Xmas 2024 meaning the campaign would have to go over Xmas/NY, and even then, there's only about a maximum for 4 weeks' leeway).
YouGov this morning has the Tories on their lowest percentage since Truss
CON 21% LAB 44% LD 10% REF 10% GREEN 8%
And a Farage founded party on 10% at its highest level since before Theresa May resigned after failing to get Brexit done or UKIP's 12% in election 2015. Indeed Reform now level with the LDs and ahead of the Greens
Unsurprisingly when migration is in the news, salience increases and Refuk get more noticed. You’d think Sunak and Co would realise this. They’ll never be right wing enough for Refuk supporters.
Imagine the analogous situation with healthcare. If the government spent a week trying to force through changes to bring down NHS waiting lists, the most predictable result would be a rise in Labour vote share.
We are trying something similar - one or two page crib sheets. This is to try to bridge the gap from open book (online) exams and in person exams. There are some issues for us - we are letting the students produce their own sheets, so who knows how much tiny writing there will be... But in the modern era in real life finding information is far easier than it ever was, so exams ought to travel away from recall and become much more application based.
@PippaCrerar · 9m NEW: No 10 announces that emergency law for Rwanda flights - due in “coming weeks” - will be primary legislation. This is significant because it means the law will have to get through House of Lords - tricky.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
This is why it would be good if there was a specific Muslim party - as I say upthread
The social beliefs of most Muslims are far too conservative to sit comfortably in the Labour Party. And this is now threatening core beliefs of the Labour Party (gay rights etc)
Yes this would make it harder for Labour to win some constituencies but that’s better than Labour abandoning central beliefs so they can cling on to Bradford North etc
I agree about this - though it would likely mean Labour also embracing PR. Not a problem for me - what's you thought on that ?
I’ve belatedly reached the conclusion that we do need PR. I was always pro FPTP but the two main parties are now so incoherent and jumbled it’s not working any more. Eg the Tory party is no longer a “broad church” - you’ve got evangelicals and actual atheists, in the same pews,as it were
Enough. It is time for PR
I’d also turn the Lords into a Federal chamber for the UK
If you only have minorities and pluralities then you either have incoherent parties (FPTP) or incoherent parliaments (PR) or of course, as at the moment, both.
PR more or less guarantees incoherent parliaments.
There is probably a majority of people who are basically centrists - Christian/Liberal/Social Democrats in European terms. The old system was there were so many of those that they could split into two and take turns while pretending to hate each other. They were called Labour and Conservative.
This is better than only one centrist party, because power corrupts.
We are needing a revolt from the centrists saying 'Down with this sort of thing' 'We support good and dull people on all sides, especially in the middle east' 'Murdering babies is sub-optimal on the whole' 'Please play nicely' 'Don't hold elections while I am knitting woolly hats for oppressed seafarers and organising the Nativity play' 'Only talk about sex in the bedroom, and remember to close the door'.
People need to read Arend Lijphart on this stuff ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Patterns-Democracy-Government-Performance-Thirty-Six/dp/0300172028/ ). What causes a system of coalition governments is having multiple main parties. You can have multiple main parties under FPTP (e.g. India). You can have multiple main parties under PR. If you have a 2-party system, then you get majority governments. You can have a 2-party system under PR (e.g. Malta, South Africa, Ireland until recently).
PR tends to encourage the development of more main parties, but it's only a limited effect. PR doesn't mean parties instantly split into smaller parts. FPTP doesn't mean they never do. The relationship between electoral system and what parties do is indirect.
You also need to consider ordinality, not just proportionality. Ordinality can solve many of the criticisms of PR without necessarily making the system more proportional.
If you really want to avoid coalition government and have "coherent" executives, then pick a presidential system. A president can only be from one party!
Trump's government was exceptionally coherent.
Which shows how these things are multifactorial. I'm all for electoral reform, but its effects are not magical.
@PippaCrerar · 9m NEW: No 10 announces that emergency law for Rwanda flights - due in “coming weeks” - will be primary legislation. This is significant because it means the law will have to get through House of Lords - tricky.
Tricky, or set up nicely for a few enemies of the people and woke blob headlines closer to the election?
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
People I know who use it are highly assimilated middle class members of the Asian community who are laughing at themselves for adopting stereotypically white behaviour, so it has always seemed a rather harmless phrase to me, although I can certainly see how it could be more sinister in a different context. Being Asian-adjacent through marriage I've certainly seen usage of phrases that would seem much worse if stripped of context or used by eg me. I do think that minority communities are going to say things about themselves that have a different meaning and context outside of those communities. I mean, I've had conversations among fellow Scots down here that I'd view differently if it was an English person saying it. One if the issues with social media is that people treat it like a private conversation but then language gets lifted and put in a different context and is looks quite different. I have never been a fan of cancel culture and certainly not of dragging up random social media posts from years ago to damn people with.
I thought the left WANTED us to be much more sensitive to stuff around race/sexuality etc. I'm confused.
People joking about their own race / sexuality is different from people making jokes at other people's expense. The punchline of the jokes were not "lol, Wes is gay" the punchline is "we are queer muslims who currently have more in common with homophobic muslims than a gay MP".
Maybe this is all just people not being able to understand jokes where they are not the audience. This conversation was not about or for straight / white / non-muslim people, it was a small group of people who hold the intersecting identities of "muslim" and "queer" joking about the intersection of those two identities. English literally has an idiom for this: strange bedfellows!
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
Is it 'subsidy'? Don't the government offer an agreed guaranteed price for all big energy generation schemes? I seem to remember the guarantee for the new nuclear projects was above this, some years ago when energy costs in general were cheaper - was that subsidy?
It looks like the market in action - goverment tried a lower price, market said no thanks, government has to try again with a better offer.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary. Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful. Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart. He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
It has to be said that I am now starting to sense Trussian levels of panic in the government now.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
That 21% is definitely two in the blood and one in the mud for the tories. A few of the more excitable types must be starting to think that stringing Sunak up on Barbie's Gallows and a snap election with Jamie Wallis as party leader might not be the worst option at this point.
Bastard. I just googled two in the blood and one in the mud on my work computer.
I think I can just about guess what it means but I don't think that is a great reflection on me. The iron rule is if you don't know what a Dura_Ace post means, (a) you don't want to know and (b) you definitely shouldn't look it up at work.
The version I’m familiar with is ‘two in the goo and one in the poo’.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 20m If you believe the papers this morning, the government next week will: - cut inheritance tax (benefits top 5% estates) - cut working age benefits I really don't think they'll walk quite so straight into a rich vs poor frame
Why interesting? Because Deptford is absolute core Labour London heartland, and normally pretty Green-curious too. But in terms of ethnic and religious mix it doesn’t have much of a Muslim population compared with areas North of the river.
Labour gaining votes at the expense of Green suggests there’s no big Gaza-related backlash in the core vote, or at least not in non-Muslim areas.
Quite a lot of new flats in that area, people moving in might be a touch less Green. Doubt anything to do with Gaza at all.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
Well done, the British left. You utter utter morons
You make a good point, although I am not sure what the left could have done about it.
This is one of the issues with our electoral system. Not so much now, but in the past a candidate invariably needed to be white, male, married with 2 children and a protestant.
OK that is the past and generally (although you raise an important issue) none of that applies anymore, but in a multi ward system it is beneficial to have a range of candidates.
This is why it would be good if there was a specific Muslim party - as I say upthread
The social beliefs of most Muslims are far too conservative to sit comfortably in the Labour Party. And this is now threatening core beliefs of the Labour Party (gay rights etc)
Yes this would make it harder for Labour to win some constituencies but that’s better than Labour abandoning central beliefs so they can cling on to Bradford North etc
I agree about this - though it would likely mean Labour also embracing PR. Not a problem for me - what's you thought on that ?
I’ve belatedly reached the conclusion that we do need PR. I was always pro FPTP but the two main parties are now so incoherent and jumbled it’s not working any more. Eg the Tory party is no longer a “broad church” - you’ve got evangelicals and actual atheists, in the same pews,as it were
Enough. It is time for PR
I’d also turn the Lords into a Federal chamber for the UK
If you only have minorities and pluralities then you either have incoherent parties (FPTP) or incoherent parliaments (PR) or of course, as at the moment, both.
PR more or less guarantees incoherent parliaments.
There is probably a majority of people who are basically centrists - Christian/Liberal/Social Democrats in European terms. The old system was there were so many of those that they could split into two and take turns while pretending to hate each other. They were called Labour and Conservative.
This is better than only one centrist party, because power corrupts.
We are needing a revolt from the centrists saying 'Down with this sort of thing' 'We support good and dull people on all sides, especially in the middle east' 'Murdering babies is sub-optimal on the whole' 'Please play nicely' 'Don't hold elections while I am knitting woolly hats for oppressed seafarers and organising the Nativity play' 'Only talk about sex in the bedroom, and remember to close the door'.
People need to read Arend Lijphart on this stuff ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Patterns-Democracy-Government-Performance-Thirty-Six/dp/0300172028/ ). What causes a system of coalition governments is having multiple main parties. You can have multiple main parties under FPTP (e.g. India). You can have multiple main parties under PR. If you have a 2-party system, then you get majority governments. You can have a 2-party system under PR (e.g. Malta, South Africa, Ireland until recently).
PR tends to encourage the development of more main parties, but it's only a limited effect. PR doesn't mean parties instantly split into smaller parts. FPTP doesn't mean they never do. The relationship between electoral system and what parties do is indirect.
You also need to consider ordinality, not just proportionality. Ordinality can solve many of the criticisms of PR without necessarily making the system more proportional.
If you really want to avoid coalition government and have "coherent" executives, then pick a presidential system. A president can only be from one party!
Trump's government was exceptionally coherent.
Which shows how these things are multifactorial. I'm all for electoral reform, but its effects are not magical.
There's a lot that I like about STV, but it does now mean that I have to go to the trouble of ranking candidates for FF and FG (in order to give them a vote ahead of Michael Collins). How can you possibly choose?
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
Is it 'subsidy'? Don't the government offer an agreed guaranteed price for all big energy generation schemes? I seem to remember the guarantee for the new nuclear projects was above this, some years ago when energy costs in general were cheaper - was that subsidy?
It looks like the market in action - goverment tried a lower price, market said no thanks, government has to try again with a better offer.
Of course guaranteed prices are subsidy. And yes nuclear gets favours too. The question is if we are subsidising are we buying the right things.
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
I was talking to my Nigerian boss about this. She thinks it is fine for that term to be used within the community, like when calling out people who leverage their identity to do things that hurt their community (like she said amongst her friend group it wouldn't be uncommon to refer to a politician like Kemi Badenoch that way). She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
The old strike price would have meant building capacity at a loss, so no one bid. Increasing it to a point where capacity gets built isn't giving in to a "ransom demand", it's just how the market works.
Cost of finance and raw materials (notably steel) are up massively since the last round.
Note Luckyguy was arguing against building surplus capacity when it was much cheaper to do so.
Planning your national energy infrastructure isn't a one year project, and we've done it pretty poorly for the last decade. But wind (and tidal) are resources which aren't going to run out, and ought not to have to crater our balance of payments for the next few decades, which importing gas will.
The Rwanda scheme is another Tory failure. A headline gimmick that simultaneously offends the centrists for its callousness, and the headbangers for being ineffective.
I am surprised Rwanda wanted any part of it. It is pretty offensive to regard Africa as a dumping ground for the unwanted.
Isnt it Rwanda touting itself for this line of business ? They are in discussion with several european countries.
It is, but lots of governments debase themselves.
Most Africans that I know resent the continent being regarded as a dumping ground.
However they are always happy to accept our cash and the hypocrisy of people who have got out of Africa to come out with that is unbelievable.
YouGov this morning has the Tories on their lowest percentage since Truss
CON 21% LAB 44% LD 10% REF 10% GREEN 8%
And a Farage founded party on 10% at its highest level since before Theresa May resigned after failing to get Brexit done or UKIP's 12% in election 2015. Indeed Reform now level with the LDs and ahead of the Greens
It's not.
The Brexit Party routinely polled in low double-digits right through the autumn of 2019, until the election was called.
The last time a poll had it on 10% or higher was early November 2019 on that chart by polling day on 12th December Boris had cut it to 2%, if he hadn't he wouldn't have got a majority. Plus of course the Brexit party was on over 20% before Boris replaced May as PM
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
The old strike price would have meant building capacity at a loss, so no one bid. Increasing it to a point where capacity gets built isn't giving in to a "ransom demand", it's just how the market works.
Cost of finance and raw materials (notably steel) are up massively since the last round.
Note Luckyguy was arguing against building surplus capacity when it was much cheaper to do so.
Planning your national energy infrastructure isn't a one year project, and we've done it pretty poorly for the last decade. But wind (and tidal) are resources which aren't going to run out, and ought not to have to crater our balance of payments for the next few decades, which importing gas will.
As I said before if we are subsidising we should decide what we want to subsidise. Why not for instance more tidal ? It is more reliable than wind. Or mini nukes to give us all the green job advantages we keep wanting. Power generators just smack of the water industry.
As for gas we can still take it from the North Sea and should,
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
The old strike price would have meant building capacity at a loss, so no one bid. Increasing it to a point where capacity gets built isn't giving in to a "ransom demand", it's just how the market works.
Cost of finance and raw materials (notably steel) are up massively since the last round.
Note Luckyguy was arguing against building surplus capacity when it was much cheaper to do so.
Planning your national energy infrastructure isn't a one year project, and we've done it pretty poorly for the last decade. But wind (and tidal) are resources which aren't going to run out, and ought not to have to crater our balance of payments for the next few decades, which importing gas will.
Apologies but you've made an important typo in your workings - Leccy is around £100/MwH which is 10 pence per kilowatt Hour.
Wholesale around £1/KwH would completely screw everything over.
@PippaCrerar · 9m NEW: No 10 announces that emergency law for Rwanda flights - due in “coming weeks” - will be primary legislation. This is significant because it means the law will have to get through House of Lords - tricky.
Tricky, or set up nicely for a few enemies of the people and woke blob headlines closer to the election?
Often with offensive terms (or dancing around it) it is the intention e.g. the couple of Labour MPs who got themselves in trouble over Kwasi, they didn't use a directly offensive term, but they absolutely expressed an opinion of that nature that he wasn't a proper black man because of the way he thinks or some of his prior life experience.
And we see the same insinuation with the likes of Sunak, Braverman and Patel.
Doing so is racist, regardless of if you directly call them a coconut. Its always dead easy to criticise them without going anywhere near that.
So we also need to discuss Rishi Sunak recently met up with a far right extremist.
This is what @elonmusk says he endorses That Jewish communities push hatred against white people. (This is a foundation of the Great Replacement Theory/"Jews will not replace us" extreme right).
Lots of far right wingers (e.g Marine le Pen, or Victor Orban) fall into this category, though - truly vile antisemitism that really is in line with Protocols or, indeed, Nazism - but because they support Israel they don't get the same level of scrutiny on it (and, indeed, will have people like Netanyahu as allies). This goes to another issue with the state of Israel as it is constructed; to those kinds of politicians its utility is not as a safe haven for the Jewish diaspora, a "homeland" in that sense, but an example (and justification) for their desire for their own ethnostates, a different "homeland" if you will. Their logic is, if the Jewish people can have one, why not us?
I have said here multiple times how the Post-Modern Neo-Marxist nonsense of the Jordan Peterson's of the world is just Nazi Judeo Bolshevism repackaged - and that is what Musk is essentially endorsing. The idea that ((someone)) must be behind the bad things happening in the West and the "fall of white people" and that ((someone)) are The Jews.
I doubt Musk will get the same scrutiny as the average random pro-Palestinian protester who calls for a ceasefire or an end to apartheid (and have very little power), despite the fact he is literally the richest man on the planet and meets with heads of states.
youre all over the place now.
The correct call is to demand
Hamas release all hostages Hamas lay down their arms Hamas surrender
Then all Gazans can have a safer life and the Israelis can have security
I mean, this was only related to the Israel Palestine conflict in the sense that the comments on X were a reaction to someone asking about anti-Semites to just be truthful in their anti-Semitism.
I think it is quite easy, and quite noncontradictory, to be against anti-Semitism and be against the actions of the Israeli government in relation to the Palestinian people. I think it is quite easy to say that Protocol level conspiracism is bad and, at the same time, accept that maybe Hamas exists not out of some pure anti-Semitic rational, but out of a mixture of political grievance, a sense of futility and some anti-Semitic feelings. I think it is not hard to look at the actions of the Israeli state and army and suggest that their indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians is bad, and should stop, and that the Hamas attack on October 7th was also abhorrent.
We have reports of Hamas trying to negotiate the release of hostages - they want to negotiate a cease to the bombing before releasing hostages in part to make sure the hostages can get out alive. This, I do not doubt, is not even motivated by altruism - more likely it is motivated by a general desire for the bombing to stop as well as a desire to look like they can be trusted political actors so that other negotiations can happen. Israel seems to be the state party refusing to negotiate and not prioritising the hostages.
they are a bunch of wrong uns, they can release the hostages if they wanted too. More likely if they got a ceasefire they would hold on to them. They can try to save their skanky arses at any time by releasing them.
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
I was talking to my Nigerian boss about this. She thinks it is fine for that term to be used within the community, like when calling out people who leverage their identity to do things that hurt their community (like she said amongst her friend group it wouldn't be uncommon to refer to a politician like Kemi Badenoch that way). She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
"Coconut" is generally considered a racial slur, there's even case law on the point.
The Global Private Banking Awards, sponsored by the Financial Times, revealed 2023 year’s winners this month at a swanky event in Mayfair. Apart from HSBC winning Best Private Bank in the UK, Guido was interested to see a bank which hasn’t been so private as of late scooping up awards. The award for Europe’s “Best Private Bank for Diversity & Inclusion” was won by none other than Coutts.
Twenty years from now, it will be quite hard to explain how the Conservative Party, in its final months in office, became gripped by the idea that it was impossible to control immigration without the help of a murderous dictatorship 4,000 miles away.
She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
So the whole point is to cast white people as the out-group?
Like, in this situation white people could be considered an "out-group", in the same way you could argue when queer people reclaim slurs straight people are an "out-group" - in that they too cannot use that slur.
Does this just boil down to white / straight people being annoyed that it isn't socially acceptable for them to say slurs or use stereotypes? Do people just get angry at seeing people make jokes or use language about their own community that it wouldn't be acceptable for them to use, because of historical and political context, and just get mad for no reason? Can white / straight people only understand language usage as a battle that they win or lose, as zero sum? Is that what the issue is here?
She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
So the whole point is to cast white people as the out-group?
Like, in this situation white people could be considered an "out-group", in the same way you could argue when queer people reclaim slurs straight people are an "out-group" - in that they too cannot use that slur.
Does this just boil down to white / straight people being annoyed that it isn't socially acceptable for them to say slurs or use stereotypes? Do people just get angry at seeing people make jokes or use language about their own community that it wouldn't be acceptable for them to use, because of historical and political context, and just get mad for no reason? Can white / straight people only understand language usage as a battle that they win or lose, as zero sum? Is that what the issue is here?
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
I was talking to my Nigerian boss about this. She thinks it is fine for that term to be used within the community, like when calling out people who leverage their identity to do things that hurt their community (like she said amongst her friend group it wouldn't be uncommon to refer to a politician like Kemi Badenoch that way). She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
"Coconut" is generally considered a racial slur, there's even case law on the point.
Yes, and interestingly that case law is about a black woman using the term. Despite it being, from my understanding (and my Nigerian bosses telling), a term that originated in the Afro-Caribbean community.
Like, the n-word is a slur that I think would be considered criminal in certain circumstances. Is it a crime for young black men to go up to each other and say "what's up my n-word"? Clearly not.
With interest rates on savings of over 5% and inflation below 5% now I think I'm right in saying that this is the first time since the credit crunch of 2008 that there has been a real rate of interest in the UK
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
I was talking to my Nigerian boss about this. She thinks it is fine for that term to be used within the community, like when calling out people who leverage their identity to do things that hurt their community (like she said amongst her friend group it wouldn't be uncommon to refer to a politician like Kemi Badenoch that way). She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
In an employment law context using it would be regarded as racial harassment if someone complained, whatever the ethnicity the perpetrator. The Equality Act says that a person harasses another if they engage in unwanted behaviour related to a relevant protected characteristic, such as race, and the behaviour has the purpose or effect* of violating the other person's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person. I think there's a specific case on the offending word as well. So using such a term, being related to race, if it has the effect stipulated (whatever the intent or whoever the perpetrator) is unlawful.
*to reassure PB Tories it has to be reasonable for the behaviour to have that "effect"
Just because it’s coming from black and Asian people, doesn’t mean it’s not horrifically racist.
I’ll be brutally honest.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
Really? I'm pretty sure my wife would say the opposite. Although neither happens with any frequency these days.
The people who use the term coconut should know better.
I was talking to my Nigerian boss about this. She thinks it is fine for that term to be used within the community, like when calling out people who leverage their identity to do things that hurt their community (like she said amongst her friend group it wouldn't be uncommon to refer to a politician like Kemi Badenoch that way). She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
"Coconut" is generally considered a racial slur, there's even case law on the point.
Yes, and interestingly that case law is about a black woman using the term. Despite it being, from my understanding (and my Nigerian bosses telling), a term that originated in the Afro-Caribbean community.
Like, the n-word is a slur that I think would be considered criminal in certain circumstances. Is it a crime for young black men to go up to each other and say "what's up my n-word"? Clearly not.
And what about a white friend of said young black men? Presumably its all context.
She, of course, said white people couldn't use it - that would be different. And that's the whole point.
So the whole point is to cast white people as the out-group?
Like, in this situation white people could be considered an "out-group", in the same way you could argue when queer people reclaim slurs straight people are an "out-group" - in that they too cannot use that slur.
Does this just boil down to white / straight people being annoyed that it isn't socially acceptable for them to say slurs or use stereotypes? Do people just get angry at seeing people make jokes or use language about their own community that it wouldn't be acceptable for them to use, because of historical and political context, and just get mad for no reason? Can white / straight people only understand language usage as a battle that they win or lose, as zero sum? Is that what the issue is here?
No, its double standards.
If by "double standard" you mean there is a different context for its usage within the community and outside of the community - then yeah, duh.
Is it a double standard for a man to call his female partner "babe" and it not be an issue, but for the same woman to be annoyed if someone else called her "babe"?
With interest rates on savings of over 5% and inflation below 5% now I think I'm right in saying that this is the first time since the credit crunch of 2008 that there has been a real rate of interest in the UK
Costs for wind are mostly upfront, so the cost of debt is a much larger part of the overall cost.
The cost of debt has recently increased by a large amount. This makes wind relatively more expensive than it was previously.
I'm pretty confident that the technology will continue to develop and drive costs down.
Nah. Corporate bigwigs think they have HMG by the balls and have upped their ransom demands.
The old strike price would have meant building capacity at a loss, so no one bid. Increasing it to a point where capacity gets built isn't giving in to a "ransom demand", it's just how the market works.
Cost of finance and raw materials (notably steel) are up massively since the last round.
Note Luckyguy was arguing against building surplus capacity when it was much cheaper to do so.
Planning your national energy infrastructure isn't a one year project, and we've done it pretty poorly for the last decade. But wind (and tidal) are resources which aren't going to run out, and ought not to have to crater our balance of payments for the next few decades, which importing gas will.
As I said before if we are subsidising we should decide what we want to subsidise. Why not for instance more tidal ? It is more reliable than wind. Or mini nukes to give us all the green job advantages we keep wanting. Power generators just smack of the water industry.
As for gas we can still take it from the North Sea and should,
We can't produce enough gas from the N Sea for our domestic needs.
Mini nukes (whose development I favour) would be a great deal more expensive than wind power - and significantly more so than the latest Korean reactors (though less of a UK planning nightmare).
Ask government about tidal. They ought to have started at least a decade ago.
Comments
China's entire "Century of Humiliation" at the hands of foreign powers was about China getting its arse kicked, rather than kicking arse, as was normative.
Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful.
Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart.
He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
Sunak seems to be scaling new heights of stupidity over this.
As absolutely bonkers as it sounds, maybe we are going to be on Prime Minister no.4 of the Parliament soon.
As one noble Lord has put it, if the police are not able to arrest people on the spot for clear offences then isn't that a reason for banning the marches? A fair point. Not an easy decision but it is one our leaders are there to make. Ignoring it under the notion of 'not wanting to inflame tensions' will not wash anymore.
He would still have lost, but perhaps people would have given him some benefit of the doubt and seen him as a safe pair of hands after Truss. He might have salvaged 200-220 seats.
The longer he stays in office the longer anger grows.
I did say when Truss was ejected that for the Tories to do something as extreme as get rid of a second PM in a Parliament they needed a plan and some contrition, and it wouldn’t have been a stupid idea to get someone in as PM in a temporary role while they had a debate about direction and policies that saw them through to a GE in 2023.
It would be like an African American Democrat going “how do we make African Americans not vote for Biden in the primary so we can get someone who can beat Trump? We could remind them he’s Catholic”.
I get more angry when someone calls me a coconut than when I get called a Paki.
The Brexit Party routinely polled in low double-digits right through the autumn of 2019, until the election was called.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Are they going to tell us today that the Executive should be sovereign?
It's that really your argument or have I misunderstood it?
The courts are just following the law as enacted, to best of their abilities. The Lords is part of the law making process. If they block something then that is their constitutional right and the Commons adjust the Act in question or it does the Parliament Act thing.
https://x.com/britainelects/status/1725105282865398010?s=46
Why interesting? Because Deptford is absolute core Labour London heartland, and normally pretty Green-curious too. But in terms of ethnic and religious mix it doesn’t have much of a Muslim population compared with areas North of the river.
Labour gaining votes at the expense of Green suggests there’s no big Gaza-related backlash in the core vote, or at least not in non-Muslim areas.
This is not people sincerely saying “let’s weaponise muslim homophobia” as much as they are saying “this thing that I hate is at least gonna hurt other people I hate”. They were taken out of context and shown as if this is mainstream typical muslim thought. Whereas this would be the equivalent of the “let them fight” or “two hands meeting in the middle” memes.
As I say - not my opinions.
The Department for Education (DfE) has asked the exams regulator, Ofqual, to extend the extra support for another year.
Most students due to sit exams next summer were in Year 7 when the first national lockdown was introduced.
Teaching unions have welcomed the proposal, which is being consulted on.
The DfE said it would mean "enhanced formulae and equation sheets" for students in maths, physics and combined science GCSEs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-67438619
Perhaps people have been on to the police, his employer, twitter to get his account taken down? Otherwise it seems as though they are just going to criticise him for his views as is normal in a free society.
(Yes, technically it can - but it couldn't then fit the election before Xmas 2024 meaning the campaign would have to go over Xmas/NY, and even then, there's only about a maximum for 4 weeks' leeway).
Imagine the analogous situation with healthcare. If the government spent a week trying to force through changes to bring down NHS waiting lists, the most predictable result would be a rise in Labour vote share.
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
9m
NEW: No 10 announces that emergency law for Rwanda flights - due in “coming weeks” - will be primary legislation. This is significant because it means the law will have to get through House of Lords - tricky.
One if the issues with social media is that people treat it like a private conversation but then language gets lifted and put in a different context and is looks quite different. I have never been a fan of cancel culture and certainly not of dragging up random social media posts from years ago to damn people with.
Maybe this is all just people not being able to understand jokes where they are not the audience. This conversation was not about or for straight / white / non-muslim people, it was a small group of people who hold the intersecting identities of "muslim" and "queer" joking about the intersection of those two identities. English literally has an idiom for this: strange bedfellows!
It looks like the market in action - goverment tried a lower price, market said no thanks, government has to try again with a better offer.
@TorstenBell
·
20m
If you believe the papers this morning, the government next week will:
- cut inheritance tax (benefits top 5% estates)
- cut working age benefits
I really don't think they'll walk quite so straight into a rich vs poor frame
Well done to Miller and Klassen for the rescue, but it shouldn’t be up to #5 and #6 to get 3/4 of the runs!
Increasing it to a point where capacity gets built isn't giving in to a "ransom demand", it's just how the market works.
Cost of finance and raw materials (notably steel) are up massively since the last round.
Current wholesale commodity price for UK electricity is currently around 100p per kWh, incidentally.
https://www.businesswisesolutions.co.uk/energy-market-snapshot/
Note Luckyguy was arguing against building surplus capacity when it was much cheaper to do so.
Planning your national energy infrastructure isn't a one year project, and we've done it pretty poorly for the last decade. But wind (and tidal) are resources which aren't going to run out, and ought not to have to crater our balance of payments for the next few decades, which importing gas will.
As for gas we can still take it from the North Sea and should,
Wholesale around £1/KwH would completely screw everything over.
And we see the same insinuation with the likes of Sunak, Braverman and Patel.
Doing so is racist, regardless of if you directly call them a coconut. Its always dead easy to criticise them without going anywhere near that.
Tue 30pts (Godwin Goodwin Ltd) >>>
Wed 27pts (Find Out Nowt) >>>
Thu 23pts (You Governs?)
The BIG MO is with Sundance and the Blue Machine.
As a Labour supporter, you must be quaking in your boots.
https://order-order.com/2023/11/16/coutts-named-best-bank-for-diversity-inclusion/
Twenty years from now, it will be quite hard to explain how the Conservative Party, in its final months in office, became gripped by the idea that it was impossible to control immigration without the help of a murderous dictatorship 4,000 miles away.
Does this just boil down to white / straight people being annoyed that it isn't socially acceptable for them to say slurs or use stereotypes? Do people just get angry at seeing people make jokes or use language about their own community that it wouldn't be acceptable for them to use, because of historical and political context, and just get mad for no reason? Can white / straight people only understand language usage as a battle that they win or lose, as zero sum? Is that what the issue is here?
Pedro Sánchez has clinched a second term as Spain’s prime minister after winning an ill-tempered investiture vote
Guardian blog
Like, the n-word is a slur that I think would be considered criminal in certain circumstances. Is it a crime for young black men to go up to each other and say "what's up my n-word"? Clearly not.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR?locations=GB
*to reassure PB Tories it has to be reasonable for the behaviour to have that "effect"
Is it a double standard for a man to call his female partner "babe" and it not be an issue, but for the same woman to be annoyed if someone else called her "babe"?
Mini nukes (whose development I favour) would be a great deal more expensive than wind power - and significantly more so than the latest Korean reactors (though less of a UK planning nightmare).
Ask government about tidal. They ought to have started at least a decade ago.