Categories
Now is the time for nuance and subtlety – politicalbetting.com
Now is the time for nuance and subtlety – politicalbetting.com
Nearly half of British adults think the UK should stay in the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no major political party, where a majority of either its supporters or voters support withdrawal. 2/12 pic.twitter.com/NfDVAkuaex
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh, god, Michael Matheson has just shoved his kids under a bus...
Social media and debate by soundbite work against it. It's rare to have a discussion where one person says "You have a point about that, I agree, but have you considered this ...?"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
People believe things like "immigrants harmed the recovery" because that's what the papers tell them. There does seem to be an air that it is a reasonable response from a right winger to something factual is "yeah, you might have evidence, but it just sounds like bollocks, don't it?"
Shocking.
Hence Sunak is right to try and renegotiate with Rwanda to ensure asylum seekers cannot be deported back to where they fled from, as the SC wanted assurances on yesterday
Then we might see these polls tested in real elex. FWIW I have no idea who would win, it obvs depends on the opposition and the socioeconomic context, and whether we have all been killed in a nuclear war, or enslaved by AI or aliens
https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2023/03/31/e382094c-98ab-4809-a4c6-18596a3a9c23/14-Duckworth-Lewis-Stern-Regulations-2023.pdf
Aus about 46 ahead of DLS par at the moment.
Michael Matheson says sons used iPad data to watch football
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67437534
Mind you, round about the turn of the century, it was common to overhear confidential information while commuting. Doctors, lawyers and social workers would openly discuss cases on mobile phones as if surrounded by a cone of silence.
And did he really think he could take kids abroad and not have them want to use the internet ?
Utter pillock.
Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly
That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
A moment was a lady shouting into her mobile phone that Raul Moats gun was stolen, so they couldn’t use the incident for The Ministers gun control agenda.
Mind you, I think this has driven a bunch of people back to work - balancing a laptop on the ironing board vs a desk with free coffee…
Wow.
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
On the contrary, it's a nebulous term which covers a very wide range of beliefs, IMO.
It's rather that you (or the strain of right wing thought you've currently adopted) are determined to label anyone with vaguely liberal beliefs as obsessed by the colour of people's skin.
Although Maxwell has just arrived at the crease. Lightening twice?
Edit: no. Out for one!
I also recognise that I am white, middle aged man in a rather excellent heterosexual relationship who has never been the subject of prejudice in my life. It behoves me to listen respectfully to those who have lived different lives and had different experiences. I don't always have to agree with the proposed solutions but it is right to listen and to give thought as to how such detriments might be addressed.
A major source of contention is the Equality Act. I think that the principles set out in that and in particular the protected characteristics have withstood the test of time and improved our society for the better. It doesn't mean that we don't get it wrong from time to time but I will do what little I can to support those principles and will have no time for those who think it right to attack them, whichever party they are in.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07N961MC8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1CK614R495RLT&keywords=White+fragility&qid=1700146855&sprefix=white+fragilit,aps,298&sr=8-1
WHITE FRAGILITY
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07ZKW6G5X?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_2_im
ME AND WHITE SUPREMACY
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XGMTRPJ?plink=9TPnYyfp2ecuNVE2&pf_rd_r=9WENSNDN6Y4K7SDTB2E2&ref_=adblp13nvvxx_0_1_im
WHY I’M NO LONGER TALKING TO WHITE PEOPLE ABOUT RACE
You are a strange PB character. Never that exciting, but occasionally somewhat sage, but I wonder if the sageness is merely a false impression created by your having a decent education and being quite polite, and actually you are dumb as a bloody breezeblock
If the remnants of previous more obviously unequal societal structures are not the causes of the still unequal societal structures of today - what are the causes?
The right of course do the same but just on different parameters.
The only thing that I can think of that's vaguely similar to the n-word or 'brother' and 'sister' (or is it brotha and sista?) for the whites is to describe someone as 'a local', but though that implies white in white countries, it certainly doesn't cover all whites even from the same country
The Supreme Court ruled that despite those assurances there were "substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement". That was partly because in a previous arrangement with Israel, Rwanda had given similar assurances and failed to respect them.
Sunak's approach seems to be along the lines of "OK you pointed out I can't trust this bloke because he's lied to people before. But it's OK - I'll ask him to say he really means it this time."
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy
In the modern vernacular it has taken over from "PC gone mad". To me it just seems to be a catch all phrase for anything reactionaries think the left believe and therefore they hate.
Her time.
But even that would need both of the two sides to not want to eradicate the other.
The core driver of the more insane stuff is actually the extreme end of ideas that come from intersectionality. Which while itself came from originally from a perfectly rational place in times when not only racial segregation in the US, but also segregation of jobs based up sex, has morphed into this lens of seeing everything through this lens of you must consider race / sex first and foremost...which is well racist.
Hence you get this nonsense of progressives / anti-racists arguing it was bad that college admissions weren't allowed to discriminate against Asians, because they are too successful....because intersectionality tells them that bucketing of Asian is different from bucketing of African Americans, and on the oppression Olympics scale, Asians aren't as oppressed as African Americans, so its ok to discriminate.
i.e. there is no racial disparity, there is i) a class disparity, and ii) a temporal lag - since successful people don't simply arrive at 45 years old as a chief executive but are hewn into that role over a period of 30 years.
That's my contention, anyway.
It's like when a writer was complaining that nobody had heard of Marcus Lollius Urbicus, among famous black Britons. Why on earth would anyone who was not a specialist on Third Century Britain have heard of the man?
Take young black Caribbean boys. A study was done (I want to say in the early - mid noughties) looking into why that group was specifically over represented in disciplinary actions and suspensions - and wanted to look at how early this started and why. So, they went and watched young black Caribbean boys in early years education in different schools. One of the things this study noted was how black Caribbean boys specifically were called out by their teachers as being disruptive in the class. It noted that teachers would see these boys taking their time getting their pencils ready, sharpening their pencils, and generally preparing to do the work and considered that them procrastinating, and told them off or punished them for it.
When the same researchers went in to the homes of these boys what they noticed was how their elders (who would teach them to do things or they would watch cook or clean etc.) would put a lot of emphasis in preparing their tools before working - cleaning all the kitchen equipment before starting to chop and cook, sharpening garden tools before gardening, etc.
So this cultural difference - an emphasis of having all your ducks in a row before starting a task - was impacting children at a very young age and was interpreted by teachers as disruptive behaviour, for which they were punished. Now, imagine this continues - these children are punished more / miss more time from class for something they just see as getting down to work, and also generally become more defensive against teachers / distrustful of education - and you can see why students from that background may have worse outcomes further down the lines. This research didn't say it was the only factor, but that it started so early and was reinforced suggested it could be a significant factor.
Now, start doing this with lots of other variables - other cultural practices, income inequality, education of the parents, etc. - and you can see how lots of small differences in opportunity (literally, just a cultural difference in understanding what it means to get ready to do work means) can have big impacts later on. One of the things we always note in my work (on barriers into Higher Education) is that the biggest predictor of good A-Levels and going to university is whether your mother has a undergraduate degree. Doesn't seem to matter too much if your dad does, but if your mother does it helps (some suggestions are that "helping the kids with homework" etc. is still typically gendered work in the household, and so the more educated your mum is, the better chances you have of performing well; it does not seem to be about income which was controlled for).
(Not on something it hasn't been given Henry VIII clause powers, anyway)
In theory, Parliamentary Supremacy requires the court to have due regard to the laws passed by Parliament so an Act which made it the law that the world is resting on the back of a turtle held up by 4 elephants would require the courts to determine any cases on that basis. But when the law requires the courts to have regard to the rights and obligations that we have given and undertaking we are in different territory. I don't see how mere legislation can fix that.
It's would be a breach of IT compliance in almost any organisation I know.
Braverman has shown herself to be inconsiderate in an extreme sense. I hope we can rule her out too.
Even if he did Tony Benn lost his Bristol seat in the Conservative 1983 landslide but was back as an MP the following year when he won the 1984 Chesterfield by election
The reasons why AAV is what it is is partly because there is such a thing as "black" people in the American context - because descendants of slaves did not know which African countries or traditions they came from, so the thing they had in common was (and is) skin colour and their treatment because of it. That isn't the case for white people, who can point to a specific country / tradition (which is why many white Americans still describe themselves as being "German" or "Irish" or "Italian" despite three or four generations having been on American soil)
The best comparison is the term “Fascism”. It’s notoriously hard to define fascism in a couple of sentences - even Mussolini struggled! - but we all know what it is. Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Benito’s Italy. I’d add iran under the ayatollahs and Gaza under Hamas, and several other Islamic examples. Islamofascism is real. Imperial Japan was fascist, too
But in the meantime lefties have expanded fascism to mean “everything I don’t like”, perhaps unhelpfully, but that doesn’t mean fascism does not exist. It does, Likewise Wokeness. It is a nebulous but powerful ideology and it is absolutely obsessed with racial and sexual identity, definitely including skin colour
Something many politicians seem to have forgotten (surprisingly given Brexit was an absolutely textbook example) is that having a popular policy isn't enough. If it's popular, you have to implement it and it has to deliver the key promised benefits.
On this one, a lot of "problems" pinned on the ECHR don't survive scrutiny. In the Rwanda case, the Government had a factual problem regarding showing that asylum seekers would be safe from refoulement - ECHR wasn't actually raising a legal impediment and it is doubtful that "we will do it even if unsafe" is a sell-able policy beyond the far right. Further, the Home Office are, as a practical matter, crap at processing asylum applications - that they are a shambles is not going to change all that much with ECHR removal.
Another recent example is Dominic Cummings raising Levi Bellfield marrying in prison as an anti-ECHR point the other day... except it's in the Marriage Act 1983 so was an enforceable right for prisoners (introduced by Thatcher, no less) long before the HRA enshrined the ECHR in UK law.
Advocates may also find repeal brought some real drawbacks along with its largely imagined benefits. Freedom of speech arguments are rather useful to newspapers and broadcasters on the right in fending of regulation they'd see as heavy handed for example, and they are also important protections for private property rights etc.
TL/DR - ideas need to be good as well as popular or you have a massive problem when you need to implement them.
Luckily, I think both have been found out now.
Your IQ is clearly too low to understand my point - or indeed to challenge the new right tropes you've swallowed wholesale.
But the funny bit is that there *is* an important bit of truth in there. All of us, at some time or another, have people who think highly of us for one reason, or lowly of us for another that have nothing to do with us personally.
If someone looks like me, sounds like me, and - say - went to the same University as me, I will be predisposed to take what they say seriously, consciously or subconsciously. Likewise, if I turn up at a meeting for disabled lesbians and speak, I think it is unlikely that people will be immediately receptive to my message.
Privilege and prejudice is not just (or even mainly) about race, and it's not context independent.
But we are lying to ourselves if we claim it doesn't exist.
Parliamentarian.
Father.
Leader.