With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
Somehow I can't get enthused about this anymore today.
A beautiful morning, one of the first cloudless, beautiful mornings in months, and someone who was alive an hour ago is now in a million pieces all over the railway line at Leagrave, having apparently chosen this course of action.
Puts it all in Context I guess, but a bit shocked. I will never forget the noise.
Spare a thought, also, for the driver and the low paid cleaners who will have to deal with the mess.
I worked in a rail depot for a few years. It is not nice and happens more often than people think.
I understand if a driver has two such tragic incidents he is pensioned off on full pay
We have had several such incidents on our North Wales rail line but also a terrible recent incident where a middle aged woman slashed her wrists on a promenade bench before staggering into the sea and eventually her body was recovered by the RNLI
Sadly, it is not just train drivers. An old friend of mine was a trackside worker, whose responsibilities included going to the scene of accidents as part of the investigation. He would describe occasionally finding body tissue, and parts, some way away from the scene. Naturally enough, this upset him deeply. He also mentioned that cleaners often find similar in odd places under the train. So much so, that I think special teams are now used for such cleaning after an incident. But they will also not be unaffected.
The know side effects on the people who witness these events include - depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, behavioural problems leading to legal issues, divorce and…. suicide.
PTSD as well
Being hit by a train at 100mph is one of the most brutal deaths imaginable. You basically disintegrate.
It’s awful. It happened to me down in the SW last year. I’d always thought a train hits the person and they spin away into oblivion but this one ran over them.
I know it causes awful travel chaos for everyone but I hope on this forum at least we can be gentle and mindful of the state the victim must have been in. Thank you for sharing this in such a heartfelt way @MisterBedfordshire and I hope you can be as okay as possible through this. Try, if you can, to do something good for yourself later and be with someone too if you can. xx
Be mindful of the other victims. The train workers who will be dealing with this from the driver, to the onboard staff, to the low paid cleaners who have to deal with the mess left.
This will live with them for a while.
So true. This is not a topic I’d want to expand into for very painful personal reasons but as a counsellor friend of mine put it, ‘suicide doesn’t end the pain, it transfers it.’ I think I’d go further, ‘suicide doesn’t end the pain, it spreads it.'
I’ve read some awful stories about train drivers affected by this and, as you say, so many others at the scene.
I also think about the secondary group of people affected in a ’Sliding Doors’ way: people who miss meetings, connections, chance encounters, romances that either won’t now happen, or might do through it etc. etc.
None of which is anyway whatsoever a criticism of the individual who felt so compelled to take their life. It’s desperate and desperately sad.
I spent a couple of years working in a railway depot. You see it from other peoples side and see the other people affected by it.
Aside from the vile abuse going on some interesting financial points:
Places at the school - for secondary school age children - cost between £50,000 and £150,000 a year per child, depending on the support they need.
Last year, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council paid the school nearly £1m
Wirral council has paid out more than £2.2m in total since the school opened in 2021. Ofsted has rated the school “good”.
Panorama's undercover reporter met the school’s CEO, Alastair Saverimutto. He told her he had big ambitions for his Life School business saying he wanted “100 schools” and to become the “first billion-pound educational division in the country”.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
That’s awful OKC. I hope you can exercise your democratic right on the day.
Simon Jupp is either fighting a very clever campaign in Honiton and Sidmouth, based on smart below the radar electioneering or he is fighting an entirely clueless one. The Tories are almost invisible here. II don't see their posters. I don't see their canvassers. I don't see their flyers. Where on earth are they? By contrast, Richard Foord and the LibDems are everywhere. It's bizarre.
Given you didn't even vote Tory in 2019 though you won't exactly be on his target list. Tory canvassers will focus on confirmed 2019 Tory voters only and target their door knocking, leaflets and social media at them. You will get the election address, that is it.
Poster count means little, apart from in Tory heartland rural areas, villages and fields, Labour and the LDs have always beaten the Tories on poster count in towns and cities, even in 1992, 2015 and 2019 when the Conservatives won majorities
The total absence of Tory posters in the safe-ish-Tory seat of Didcot and Wantage where I'm spending some of my time is quite striking - someone must have decided that having just a few was worse than having none. The LibDems (who were 2nd in 2019 though 3rd in 2015/17) were first out of the blocks with masses of generic posters and leaflets; Labour is now approaching similar numbers of posters and are much more active than in 2019. The Tories apppear to be doing almost nothing, according to Tory friends. In Godalming and Ash, where I'm still primarily based, the Tories are fighting much harder to save Jeremy Hunt's seat from a strong LibDem challenge - outcome still something of a toss-up in my opinion.
They named their female daughter after her male great-great-grandfather. It's wall-to-wall woke trans propaganda. Trouble is, there'd be a lot more arguments if registrars were empowered to reject or even question parents' choices. I worked with someone called Derrick, knowingly misspelt in order to end with the start of another name. I don't like the American trend, now here, of using surnames as first names, like Taylor Swift. Maybe we should adopt the old French system of allowing only names from a state-approved list. It would suit our current big state Conservatives.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
Yes, but in Britain talking about the kind of racism experienced by people in Britain it is reasonable to talk about the history of the construction of race and racism in a British and larger European / Western context.
Racism in China and Japan are still based on their own imperial histories and the influence of western imperialism - whether that is towards black people or the stereotypes of people from other East Asian countries. The construction of whiteness is easy to see when viewed historically - there was a time when the Japanese argued to be counted in whiteness and a time when Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans did not count as white.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Rishi's Tory seppuku. Good analogy.
I honestly don't know how he and Theresa May built political skills with media, interview and debating skills that inept.
Nor do I understand what process/training CCHQ put candidates through. Whatever it is it clearly isn't good enough. And it should be refreshed regularly for elected MPs as part of their CPD.
Harsh on May. She failed, but I'm not sure anyone else could have done better. And she had put in the hard yards of campaigning, in local government and hopeless elections. She wasn't great, but she was a tryer.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
How do you think focusing on the RN and the slave trade would have helped you better understand unconscious bias?
It was more interested in lecturing people about "structural racism" and the original sins of Britain than it was dealing with unconscious bias today.
The poundshop history lesson just underlined this. Which also managed to only mention one race throughout.
When people criticise 'Wokery' this is exactly what they mean: hectoring to a predetermined agenda, distorting the facts whilst expecting you to be 'educated' by them, and then vociferously going after anyone who objects as part of the problem.
It isn't really interested in helping you address any underlying issues or behaviours. Only compliance.
Those criticisms seem fair enough. I think the subject is definitely worthy of training for managers but I would broaden it out to things like height, attractiveness, accent, gender as well as race to make it less divisive and focus more on how the mind works, the problems that cause the organisation and tools to adjust how we think.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
How do you think focusing on the RN and the slave trade would have helped you better understand unconscious bias?
It was more interested in lecturing people about "structural racism" and the original sins of Britain than it was dealing with unconscious bias today.
The poundshop history lesson just underlined this. Which also managed to only mention one race throughout.
When people criticise 'Wokery' this is exactly what they mean: hectoring to a predetermined agenda, distorting the facts whilst expecting you to be 'educated' by them, and then vociferously going after anyone who objects as part of the problem.
It isn't really interested in helping you address any underlying issues or behaviours. Only compliance.
Your employer doesn't seem like a good one. Our training on this subject is very even-handed and focussed on how we personally need to be aware of our prejudices and considers how a diverse team will be on balance perform better than a team who are all from a similar background. And race doesn't really come into it - it is as much about background, gender, disability and even age. If anything,the company is realising that its problem is not race (though still gender, a bit) that we don't have enough people with a WWC background and too many privately educated southern English.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
How do you think focusing on the RN and the slave trade would have helped you better understand unconscious bias?
It was more interested in lecturing people about "structural racism" and the original sins of Britain than it was dealing with unconscious bias today.
The poundshop history lesson just underlined this. Which also managed to only mention one race throughout.
When people criticise 'Wokery' this is exactly what they mean: hectoring to a predetermined agenda, distorting the facts whilst expecting you to be 'educated' by them, and then vociferously going after anyone who objects as part of the problem.
It isn't really interested in helping you address any underlying issues or behaviours. Only compliance.
Those criticisms seem fair enough. I think the subject is definitely worthy of training for managers but I would broaden it out to things like height, attractiveness, accent, gender as well as race to make it less divisive and focus more on how the mind works, the problems that cause the organisation and tools to adjust how we think.
I think attractive, articulate, well-spoken and charming individuals all have an advantage.
I probably am subconsciously affected by handshakes: both the limp ones (eh?) but also the stupid bonecrushing ones (double eh?) but only to the extent it demonstrates a level of care or interest in meeting me.
They named their female daughter after her male great-great-grandfather. It's wall-to-wall woke trans propaganda. Trouble is, there'd be a lot more arguments if registrars were empowered to reject or even question parents' choices. I worked with someone called Derrick, knowingly misspelt in order to end with the start of another name. I don't like the American trend, now here, of using surnames as first names, like Taylor Swift. Maybe we should adopt the old French system of allowing only names from a state-approved list. It would suit our current big state Conservatives.
Mr. Royale, well, you did spot the unconscious bias of whoever put the material together, so I suspect that means you passed.
I take it there wasn't an extensive consideration of the fact it was black slave traders selling black slaves to colonial powers?
It asked me to tick all the areas I'd appreciate guidance or tips on. I ticked every single one to cover myself, particularly since the scenario trained failed to work or load, and then gave pointed feedback on how I thought the history lesson was inappropriate and I didn't agree with it.
No doubt I'll be ignored. But it made me feel better and gives me something of a defence.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
29% - I really don’t see the Tories getting 24% and that’s in danger
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
They named their female daughter after her male great-great-grandfather. It's wall-to-wall woke trans propaganda. Trouble is, there'd be a lot more arguments if registrars were empowered to reject or even question parents' choices. I worked with someone called Derrick, knowingly misspelt in order to end with the start of another name. I don't like the American trend, now here, of using surnames as first names, like Taylor Swift. Maybe we should adopt the old French system of allowing only names from a state-approved list. It would suit our current big state Conservatives.
Lol
Very drole.
And that’s as far as I shall go into the trans issue on here, although I’m always bemused that otherwise intelligent people can be so uniformed about people transitioning from female to male. ( @Cyclefree ’s one-way definition of gender ideology as 'the belief that men can turn into women’ being the latest classic example.)
I’m off out. Far more important things to be engaged with than that issue on a political forum.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
I don't think this sort of "approach" is going to stay the course in the long-term.
I doubt it'd be very popular amongst most British minority or immigrant communities either.
It managed to mention almost none of them.
Aren't these things mostly an arse-covering exercise for the company? So that if someone offends someone else with their crass behaviour or discrimination, the company can't be sued for not setting out what is expected of its employees?
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
I remember reading an article for my history degree about the psephology of the 1932 German election. Traditionally both Marxist and small 'c' conservative historians have, like you, blamed the lower middle class, the petite-bourgeoisie, for electing the Nazis.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
If you have a citation I'd be really interested in reading that. And I don't think we can consider farmers as different to small business owners - they are a class of people who are asset rich (in many cases owning their land) and who really want cheap labour to maximise their profits. I've seen really interesting analysis of the farmers in Europe and their relationship to the far right discussing it more in these terms - with many farmers both being conspiratorially anti Net Zero (in the sense that they will use conspiratorial talking points, I accept that they are materially impacted by policies aimed at making petrol and diesel more expensive) as well as talking a lot about being small business owners just trying to make ends meet.
I prefer listening to podcasts, but did read "They Thought They Were Free, The Germans 1933-45" and "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", and Behind the Bastards did an interesting couple of episodes on "The Nice Normal People that Made the Holocaust Possible" that discussed this issue. I do concede that the first book at least is based around talking to a few individual "normal Germans" who were Nazi supporters rather than based on psephology.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
I don't think this sort of "approach" is going to stay the course in the long-term.
I doubt it'd be very popular amongst most British minority or immigrant communities either.
It managed to mention almost none of them.
I went to one of these a few years and I was asked if I ever felt oppressed/the victim of bias.
My reply was 'Yes, the bigotry aimed against the privately educated, add in the latent homophobia' wasn't the reply they were expecting.
I'm not too worried.
By chance (and personal request from two of them that they move into my team) none of the five people I manage happen to be "white men", and three are minorities, and all give me kind feedback.
They quite like that I treat them as individuals and don't have time for the gesture stuff.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
The thing people forget about prejudice and race is that, historically speaking, skin colour / race was not always the category for prejudicial thought. In the classical period, for example, there was no understanding of whiteness as we have it now - the Romans and Greeks felt they had more in common with the Persians and Egyptians than they did with the Gauls and Celts of Western Europe. To say that the Roman Empire was inclusive is to note that anyone regardless of skin colour, religion or origin of birth could be a Roman Citizen and eligible for the rights of that citizenship. Again - race as denoted by skin colour was not really a factor here. The divide was Civilised versus Barbarian. And lots of "white" people were in that Barbarian camp.
As for the shift to the construction of race and the slave trade; that seems mostly right - if a very broad brush / low level explanation. Again, during the middle ages the distinction of bigotry was more Christendom versus Heathens - which racialised Muslims and Jewish people but accepted converts and black Christians (mostly, obviously not always) - and shifted to skin based system with slavery. The construction of scientific racism also grew with empire - indeed, one of the first races deemed obviously inferior due to their obvious physical traits and natural inclinations were the Irish, arguably the first victims of British colonialism. Then race became much more of a feature as the transatlantic slave trade grew and scientific racism was needed to justify the enslavement of black Africans - especially amongst white liberationists, like Thomas Jefferson, who were great philosophers of freedom who constantly justified his own slave holding with the idea that black Africans were just too dumb to be left to their own devices and try and form a society. This was questioned at the time by many French revolutionaries, even with contemporaries pointing out how his slaves could do complex tasks in his nail manufacturing factories from a young age, so surely they can do skilled and complex labour and can be set free - and Jefferson just shrugging and then arguing about the problems of miscegenation.
I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest, as a quick overview video, that racism as we know it today was likely "invented" during the period of the transatlantic slave trade and empire. Would some people have been prejudice towards people due to skin colour prior to that, sure, but the systemic ideology underlying the stereotypes of race only came about during this period.
I'd argue it is unreasonable to do so; or, at least, a very partial viewing of history. Racism is not just about white towards black people; or white towards any other skin colour. Racism exists all around the world, and in all sorts of directions. It is also not a uniquely British, or even western, phenomenon.
I don't think this sort of "approach" is going to stay the course in the long-term.
I doubt it'd be very popular amongst most British minority or immigrant communities either.
It managed to mention almost none of them.
Aren't these things mostly an arse-covering exercise for the company? So that if someone offends someone else with their crass behaviour or discrimination, the company can't be sued for not setting out what is expected of its employees?
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
PfP raises an issue which may have a surprising amount of cut-through. The oldies around here (i.e. most of the population) are not so much likely to forget their id as to be affronted by the very suggestion that the custom of a lifetime has been changed unhelpfully and unnecessarily. This has in some cases sparked an 'eff 'em' attitude likely to results in a change in the voting habit of a lifetime.
I think PfP is right. Turnout looks like a sell, and stay-at-homes and protest voters might be up a tad.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Binface's manifesto makes a great deal more sense than Reform's but his proposal to cap the price of croissants at £1.10 will mystify the poorer section of the working class croissant eater. Lidl sell frozen ones for finishing at home at under £3 for 8. It seems to me that Binface is joining the overfed politicians who don't know the price of gruel. His proposal for 99s to cost 99p however is pitched about right.
@Peter_the_Punter if the Tory vote splits between Conservatives and Reform then seats like Hampshire North East and North West could come into play for the LDs.
I'm starting to detect anecdotal evidence of this.
Kit Malthouse is perceived as lazy and taking the constituency for granted locally, in strong contrast to Sir George Young, and Ranil J is no James Arbuthnot either - and slightly odd.
Thanks Casino.
That 16/1 looks ok then for anyone who can get it. If anyone has an account and can put a tenner on for me I'll be obliged. Happy to share any winnings with the charity of their choice.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
I remember reading an article for my history degree about the psephology of the 1932 German election. Traditionally both Marxist and small 'c' conservative historians have, like you, blamed the lower middle class, the petite-bourgeoisie, for electing the Nazis.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
If you have a citation I'd be really interested in reading that. And I don't think we can consider farmers as different to small business owners - they are a class of people who are asset rich (in many cases owning their land) and who really want cheap labour to maximise their profits. I've seen really interesting analysis of the farmers in Europe and their relationship to the far right discussing it more in these terms - with many farmers both being conspiratorially anti Net Zero (in the sense that they will use conspiratorial talking points, I accept that they are materially impacted by policies aimed at making petrol and diesel more expensive) as well as talking a lot about being small business owners just trying to make ends meet.
I prefer listening to podcasts, but did read "They Thought They Were Free, The Germans 1933-45" and "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", and Behind the Bastards did an interesting couple of episodes on "The Nice Normal People that Made the Holocaust Possible" that discussed this issue. I do concede that the first book at least is based around talking to a few individual "normal Germans" who were Nazi supporters rather than based on psephology.
The short answer is not immediately - no - I can't give you a citation. I was an undergraduate the mid-nineties so would have read it in hard copy in an academic journal in a library nearly 30 years ago. But the abstract of this NYT book review from 1982 (which was one of the first results in my Google search just now) suggests the book being reviewed comes to a similar conclusion, but as I recall the article I read in the mid-90s built upon this and came to similar conclusions via a more vigorous statistical analysis of the 1932 results -
"In Catholic regions Hitler polled relatively few votes, in Protestant regions much more; in other words, class was much less important than religion. It is also true that in working-class neighborhoods the Nazis did not do as well as in the wealthier quarters and that they did considerably better in small towns than in big cities.
Mr. Hamilton also maintains that the ''lower-middle-class theory'' seems to be untrue for cities, and that, broadly speaking, the higher the income in an electoral district, the greater the support for the Nazi Party. But his arguments are not wholly convincing; for a variety of reasons, he is more effective in demolishing old explanations than in providing new ones. One reason is technical: The data on which he bases his arguments are only approximate. The degree to which the author has immersed himself in local conditions in Germany and local politics is admirable; that era, after all, is a world that no longer exists and that the author, who did not know it at first hand, had to reconstruct on the basis of municipal statistics, Baedeker guides and other such sources."
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active support this.
My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
Nonsense. It was done using indentured labour before (including many Irish) and hired labour after.
Slavery wasn't efficient. And nor was the IR triggered by it.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
29% - I really don’t see the Tories getting 24% and that’s in danger
It certainly is - at that level FPTP is even more of a lottery, for example: LibDem Vote 2010 was 22% and they won 57 seats LibDem Vote 2015 was 23% and they won 8 seats
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
One could argue that the IR happened partly because of the lack of slave labour in the UK but, yes, all that cheap raw cotton for those northern mills had to come from somewhere, and I think we know where.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
I remember reading an article for my history degree about the psephology of the 1932 German election. Traditionally both Marxist and small 'c' conservative historians have, like you, blamed the lower middle class, the petite-bourgeoisie, for electing the Nazis.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
"Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war)" The land in the eastern part of Prussia ended up in Poland. The people who voted 1932 were, by the end of 1945, either dead or had moved to within the modern German borders. They were replaced by Poles who were also driven west by the USSR land grab.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
Anyone have any idea what's going on here, and who is telling the truth ?
Labour accuses Tories of planning unfunded tax cuts https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxv0wdrn0o ..The Conservative manifesto is funded in large part by proposed cuts to spending on benefits, which the party says are not currently government policy. But the chancellor wrote in a newsletter to constituents last week that the tax cuts in the Conservative manifesto would be funded by savings from "an enormous back to work programme (which I announced in the Autumn Statement last year)". Labour seized on his comments as evidence that the welfare cuts “are not new” and “the money has been spent”. However, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it was not true that the projected savings on welfare were already factored into economic forecasts. Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Hunt's comments were “truly extraordinary”, and amounted to an admission that the Conservatives’ flagship welfare cuts involve “money that is already accounted for”. Sir Keir added: “The money isn’t there and that’s the major problem.” The Conservatives said Labour were in “complete denial” about the rise in the benefits bill and insisted that the savings they intend to use to fund tax cuts will come from new policies. Government spending on health and disability-related benefits has risen by £20bn in real terms since 2019, and a further £11bn increase is forecast over the next five years, making this a significant policy challenge for whichever party wins the general election. It is especially crucial for the Conservative Party because they have said they would cut £12bn a year in government spending on benefits compared to forecast levels by 2029. Those savings make up around two-thirds of the money being used to fund manifesto pledges on tax cuts and increased defence spending...
Obviously the Conservative spending plans include a large dollop of fantasy (though nowhere near Farage's nonsense), but that's not an issue for them as they won't be in government. But Labour are baselining their fiscal plans on what government is currently doing, so this isn't an entirely abstract debate.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
29% - I really don’t see the Tories getting 24% and that’s in danger
It certainly is - at that level FPTP is even more of a lottery, for example: LibDem Vote 2010 was 22% and they won 57 seats LibDem Vote 2015 was 23% and they won 8 seats
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
PfP raises an issue which may have a surprising amount of cut-through. The oldies around here (i.e. most of the population) are not so much likely to forget their id as to be affronted by the very suggestion that the custom of a lifetime has been changed unhelpfully and unnecessarily. This has in some cases sparked an 'eff 'em' attitude likely to results in a change in the voting habit of a lifetime.
I think PfP is right. Turnout looks like a sell, and stay-at-homes and protest voters might be up a tad.
The funny thing about all this is that, in Ireland, where ID to vote has been a requirement for ages, I wasn't asked for my ID when I went to vote recently. I would guess that impersonation is impossible when everyone knows everyone in a local area.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
One could argue that the IR happened partly because of the lack of slave labour in the UK but, yes, all that cheap raw cotton for those northern mills had to come from somewhere, and I think we know where.
Rather more important than cotton was coal, and it came from Britain. Britain was a huge resource exporter during that period.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
It's worth emphasising *big* business. The majority of businesses (still providing a majority of employment, IIRC) tend to be shafted by the right at least as much (if not more than) the left. At least since government stopped having a reasonable number of actual business people (and trade unionists) involved, rather than financiers and PPE graduates.
Yes - although there was also a historic tendency amongst at least "volkish" small business owners that also tend towards the far right because they too were the dictators of their shop. It's also forgotten just how much of fascism is about wealth redistribution, but instead of from the wealthy, it is from the outsider to a) members of the party and b) some of the "volk". So much of the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany was straight up theft - of shops, of jewellery, of labour. This is more obvious when we look at rich Jewish people of the era - those who had wealth in art and masses of jewels - but even those less well off were forced to give their valuables to the government to be allowed to leave prior to the death camps. The far right does not believe in a rising tide helping all ships - it believes in sinking other ships and stealing from the wreckage.
Again - when we on the left say socialism or barbarism, we're not playing with hyperbole, it's the lesson of history. The options for wealth redistribution are taking from those few who have vast wealth and let them still have a decent standard of living just no longer allowing them to be dragons hoarding wealth, or to exterminate a subsection of the poor and redistribute what they leave behind.
I remember reading an article for my history degree about the psephology of the 1932 German election. Traditionally both Marxist and small 'c' conservative historians have, like you, blamed the lower middle class, the petite-bourgeoisie, for electing the Nazis.
In fact this study found little or no correlation with social class. The far bigger determining factors were residence in rural areas and Protestantism. Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war) reached Baathist level votes for the Nazis in an unquestionably free and fair election. Conversely large cities, particularly in the Catholic South, had proportionately lower Nazi votes. But there was little evidence, contrary to Marxist theory and conservative prejudice, that smaller shop/business owners broke for Hitler's party.
"Some villages in very protestant rural Prussia (which, as a result of their vote, ended up in Poland after the war)" The land in the eastern part of Prussia ended up in Poland. The people who voted 1932 were, by the end of 1945, either dead or had moved to within the modern German borders. They were replaced by Poles who were also driven west by the USSR land grab.
Yes. The point I was making was that the villagers in question inadvertently and indirectly pushed their villages out of Germany 13-14 years later. Which presumably was not what they were hoping for.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
Nonsense. It was done using indentured labour before (including many Irish) and hired labour after.
Slavery wasn't efficient. And nor was the IR triggered by it.
This is just the latest fashionable BS.
OK so what was efficient? Because the dosh must have come from somewhere.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
I'm not sure. Target 73 all seats, 62nd Tory target, I dont see 70 plus LD seats on 11% or so
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
The problem is that some of these so called tactical voting sites appear to just look at the result from five years ago, see who came second then, and name that party as the challenger to the Tory MP.
Some try to apply a national swing to a specific seat - which obviously does not work.
Others again claim to take into account the results of local elections - but then seem to ignore them. I strongly believe that local government election results do reflect the presence of a political party on the ground.
In the case of your Newton Abbot seat, Ms Heathener, do you know just how many Labour councillors there are currently at District and County level? This will tell you something about the strength of the Labour Party there, and whether or not it is a real challenger.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
PfP raises an issue which may have a surprising amount of cut-through. The oldies around here (i.e. most of the population) are not so much likely to forget their id as to be affronted by the very suggestion that the custom of a lifetime has been changed unhelpfully and unnecessarily. This has in some cases sparked an 'eff 'em' attitude likely to results in a change in the voting habit of a lifetime.
I think PfP is right. Turnout looks like a sell, and stay-at-homes and protest voters might be up a tad.
The funny thing about all this is that, in Ireland, where ID to vote has been a requirement for ages, I wasn't asked for my ID when I went to vote recently. I would guess that impersonation is impossible when everyone knows everyone in a local area.
And it's Ireland. They do things their own way there.
They probably only ask for id if you haven't got it.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
I'm not sure. Target 73 all seats, 62nd Tory target, I dont see 70 plus LD seats on 11% or so
The question is not whether they will win, but whether they are the better challenger or Labour.
LDs will almost certainly win some long shots and lose some theoretically easier targets.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
When coached by my bother Canterbury Rugby Club were briefly in the third tier of English rugby. But, no, we don't have a top flight rugby club.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
I'm not sure. Target 73 all seats, 62nd Tory target, I dont see 70 plus LD seats on 11% or so
The question is not whether they will win, but whether they are the better challenger or Labour.
LDs will almost certainly win some long shots and lose some theoretically easier targets.
Oh for sure. Yes they are definitely the best placed
"MH370 mystery: Plane's location could finally be discovered after ten years
Travel expert Simon Calder says there is a chance the MH370 mystery could finally be solved after British researchers found a signal that may lead them to the plane's location."
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
Proper history is hard. Pop history is toe curling. Doing history with regard to some narrow conclusion about issue X and group Y and facts Z right now is what extremists do.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
I'm not sure. Target 73 all seats, 62nd Tory target, I dont see 70 plus LD seats on 11% or so
What figures are you using to draw up your list of target seats, Mr Dyed? Not very up to date ones, I imagine.
With the new regulations now in place as regards the requirement to provide photo ID when voting, does anyone consider, as I do, that this is likely to have a material impact in reducing turnout figures. The 2.5% bands currently on offer from the Betfair Exchange immediately below the 60% level certainly offer some attractions should you believe that this is likely to prove to be the percentage who ultimately cast their vote:
Betfair Current Decimal Odds Turnout Band % To Buy To Sell 55.00% - 57.49% 19.0 36.0
57.50% - 59.99% 5.8 6.2
A certain level of voters will not have the required form of ID readily to hand or may not even possess such ID. Others may forget to take this with them to the polling station or simply cannot be bothered. There is also likely to be a significant number who voted Conservative in 2019 but who, like myself, although feeling very badly let down, cannot bring themselves to vote for an alternative party and have therefore consciously decided to abstain. I may be wrong but I wonder whether the number in this category may prove to be be very substantial.
Morning All! Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
PfP raises an issue which may have a surprising amount of cut-through. The oldies around here (i.e. most of the population) are not so much likely to forget their id as to be affronted by the very suggestion that the custom of a lifetime has been changed unhelpfully and unnecessarily. This has in some cases sparked an 'eff 'em' attitude likely to results in a change in the voting habit of a lifetime.
I think PfP is right. Turnout looks like a sell, and stay-at-homes and protest voters might be up a tad.
The funny thing about all this is that, in Ireland, where ID to vote has been a requirement for ages, I wasn't asked for my ID when I went to vote recently. I would guess that impersonation is impossible when everyone knows everyone in a local area.
I wasn't asked for ID during the London mayorals, either. I suspect lots of poll clerks are happy enough in practice to accept a polling card.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
29% - I really don’t see the Tories getting 24% and that’s in danger
It certainly is - at that level FPTP is even more of a lottery, for example: LibDem Vote 2010 was 22% and they won 57 seats LibDem Vote 2015 was 23% and they won 8 seats
LD vote in 2015 was 8%
Yes, sorry I read the results for 'Last Election' on Wikipedia. I think the point still stands that with percentages in the mid 20s, the results are unpredictable.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
One could argue that the IR happened partly because of the lack of slave labour in the UK but, yes, all that cheap raw cotton for those northern mills had to come from somewhere, and I think we know where.
Rather more important than cotton was coal, and it came from Britain. Britain was a huge resource exporter during that period.
I admit I'm no historian, but this extract from the Wikipedia* page on the Economic History of the UK seems to indicate that textile manufacturing was one of the main driving forces of the industrial revolution which, in turn, drove the demand for coal:
"The steam engine was invented and became a power supply that soon surpassed waterfalls and horsepower. The first practicable steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen, and was used for pumping water out of mines. A much more powerful steam engine was invented by James Watt; it had a reciprocating engine capable of powering machinery. The first steam-driven textile mills began to appear in the last quarter of the 18th century, and this transformed the industrial revolution into an urban phenomenon, greatly contributing to the appearance and rapid growth of industrial towns.
The progress of the textile trade soon outstripped the original supplies of raw materials. By the turn of the 19th century, imported American cotton had replaced wool in the North West of England, though wool remained the chief textile in Yorkshire. Textiles have been identified as the catalyst in technological change in this period. The application of steam power stimulated the demand for coal; the demand for machinery and rails stimulated the iron industry; and the demand for transportation to move raw material in and finished products out stimulated the growth of the canal system, and (after 1830) the railway system.
Such an unprecedented degree of economic growth was not sustained by domestic demand alone. The application of technology and the factory system created such levels of mass production and cost efficiency that enabled British manufacturers to export inexpensive cloth and other items worldwide."
After three weeks in Moldova, Transnitria and Ukraine, the United Kingdom looks insanely prosperous and seductive. Affluent, sunny, no obvious bomb damage. Lush
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
Surely on July 4th University students will be back home and voting there.
Meanwhile, over at the Post Office Inquiry, Ian Henderson of Second Sight is telling it like it really was. It makes a refreshing change from the procession of evasive, uncooperative Post Office witness who all suffer from shocking memory loss.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
Surely on July 4th University students will be back home and voting there.
They will, and they were for the last election in 2019. But I didn't say anything about students. Just a campus! Vibes.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
Surely on July 4th University students will be back home and voting there.
Most (but not all) of them were on 12 December 2019 as well. Classes were over at both unis but Canterbury still went LAB.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
Proper history is hard. Pop history is toe curling. Doing history with regard to some narrow conclusion about issue X and group Y and facts Z right now is what extremists do.
Everyone's at it, though Biggar is only an historian in the sense that he may self-identify as one.
Back in Blighty and the weather is beaut. Dunno what you’re all moaning about
LOL. There are plenty of specialist sites for weather chat. I visit many of them. Suggest you do likewise.
The weather will play its part in the election, though. It's been evident for a while that the pattern would bring us awful cold cloudy weather for the first half of the campaign - enough to get everyone thoroughly pissed off and cross, and blaming the government.
Then it would start to improve and feel much more summery in the closing stages. We could be in mid to high 20s next week for example. That gets people feeling optimistic for the future. Things can only get better.
Perfect evolution for Labour, but maybe not so bad for the Tories either. Not so good for Reform - I think they really need people feeling depressed and angry.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
One could argue that the IR happened partly because of the lack of slave labour in the UK but, yes, all that cheap raw cotton for those northern mills had to come from somewhere, and I think we know where.
Rather more important than cotton was coal, and it came from Britain. Britain was a huge resource exporter during that period.
The clue about capitalism is in the name - capital. Without capital you have no capitalism.
So for capitalism to kick off you need to have some initial capital. In the USSR, for example, they found their initial capital investment by selling Ukrainian grain, causing a famine.
For Britain, the enclosures did a little, and also the Highland clearances, to intensify wealth extraction from agriculture and provide capital. But the amazing profits from the slave trade, and early sugar plantations in Barbados, and other early Imperial adventures, did a lot of the initial heavy lifting. Which the Industrial Revolution then multiplied many times over.
As to how much of Britain's current wealth you would ascribe to the multiplication, and how much to the initial investment from slave-related profits, I really don't know.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
I mean just the name gives it away. Newton Abbott. Clearly to be said with a Devonshire burr and a bit of straw in the mouth. It goes Lib Dem on most counts of my foolproof tactical vote test although railway sidings and trading estates queer the pitch a bit.
I'm not sure. Target 73 all seats, 62nd Tory target, I dont see 70 plus LD seats on 11% or so
What figures are you using to draw up your list of target seats, Mr Dyed? Not very up to date ones, I imagine.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
Rishi's Tory seppuku. Good analogy.
I honestly don't know how he and Theresa May built political skills with media, interview and debating skills that inept.
Nor do I understand what process/training CCHQ put candidates through. Whatever it is it clearly isn't good enough. And it should be refreshed regularly for elected MPs as part of their CPD.
Harsh on May. She failed, but I'm not sure anyone else could have done better. And she had put in the hard yards of campaigning, in local government and hopeless elections. She wasn't great, but she was a tryer.
Rishi just doesn't have a clue.
May also got 42% of the vote in 2017 and 317 seats, at the time the highest Tory voteshare since 1987 and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992
Simon Jupp is either fighting a very clever campaign in Honiton and Sidmouth, based on smart below the radar electioneering or he is fighting an entirely clueless one. The Tories are almost invisible here. II don't see their posters. I don't see their canvassers. I don't see their flyers. Where on earth are they? By contrast, Richard Foord and the LibDems are everywhere. It's bizarre.
Given you didn't even vote Tory in 2019 though you won't exactly be on his target list. Tory canvassers will focus on confirmed 2019 Tory voters only and target their door knocking, leaflets and social media at them. You will get the election address, that is it.
Poster count means little, apart from in Tory heartland rural areas, villages and fields, Labour and the LDs have always beaten the Tories on poster count in towns and cities, even in 1992, 2015 and 2019 when the Conservatives won majorities
The total absence of Tory posters in the safe-ish-Tory seat of Didcot and Wantage where I'm spending some of my time is quite striking - someone must have decided that having just a few was worse than having none. The LibDems (who were 2nd in 2019 though 3rd in 2015/17) were first out of the blocks with masses of generic posters and leaflets; Labour is now approaching similar numbers of posters and are much more active than in 2019. The Tories apppear to be doing almost nothing, according to Tory friends. In Godalming and Ash, where I'm still primarily based, the Tories are fighting much harder to save Jeremy Hunt's seat from a strong LibDem challenge - outcome still something of a toss-up in my opinion.
I think it is also helps the Tory campaign where they have a popular incumbent MP they will try and re elect standing again not a candidate imposed on them from a CCHQ chosen shortlist of 3.
More activists will turn out for the former than the latter
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
A practical consideration, if you accept the overall pollling that suggests that Labour will win, is whether you want a Government or Opposition MP. A case for voting Labour in seats like Didcot and Wantage where there appears to be a 3-way marginal is that it's more useful to have some Labour MPs in Government representing uncharactaristic constituencies than one extra Tory or LibDem in opposition.
The discussions this morning suggest there will be a lot of seats where the Tories squeeze through on a split Lib-Lab vote, and possibly several that end up with Lib-Lab in first and second places and the Conservatives in third, which will make for an interesting election in 2028.
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground - Small fields with hedgerows - A cathedral - Orchards, vineyards or cattle - Steep hillsides - Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate - A university campus - Railway sidings - Distribution centres - A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
Not sure that analysis works in Canterbury.
I commented yesterday that Canterbury almost looks like an anomaly. Anywhere else in the country it could be Lib Dem. But the university campus (x2), railway sidings, trading estates galore and lack of orange diamonds or top flight rugby club tips it decisively into the Red box.
Surely on July 4th University students will be back home and voting there.
Most (but not all) of them were on 12 December 2019 as well. Classes were over at both unis but Canterbury still went LAB.
Has anyone seen any registration numbers? Felt like we almost had a daily update in 2017 and nothing now.
Martin Lewis tells me (I think we’re close friends because he emails me most days) that today is the last day for registrations.
On these polls it won’t change the results but it might change some seats, and it’s certainly relevant for a turnout bet.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
Anecdotally Labour have started buying Facebook ads in a few constituencies round here where they have very little chance and the Lib Dems are the main challengers. The "cocky" scenario looks pretty plausible.
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
Proper history is hard. Pop history is toe curling. Doing history with regard to some narrow conclusion about issue X and group Y and facts Z right now is what extremists do.
Everyone's at it, though Biggar is only an historian in the sense that he may self-identify as one.
Not a huge fan of Biggar, but if you are to describe as 'Not a senior academic' (see the link) someone who has held professorships at Leeds, TCD and Oxford you have to provide at least a scintilla of backing.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
A practical consideration, if you accept the overall pollling that suggests that Labour will win, is whether you want a Government or Opposition MP. A case for voting Labour in seats like Didcot and Wantage where there appears to be a 3-way marginal is that it's more useful to have some Labour MPs in Government representing uncharactaristic constituencies than one extra Tory or LibDem in opposition.
Usual disclaimer: no one apart from the local CLP chair thinks that Didcot & Wantage is a three-way marginal.
Though I grant you have more experience of three-ways than most of us.
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
A practical consideration, if you accept the overall pollling that suggests that Labour will win, is whether you want a Government or Opposition MP. A case for voting Labour in seats like Didcot and Wantage where there appears to be a 3-way marginal is that it's more useful to have some Labour MPs in Government representing uncharactaristic constituencies than one extra Tory or LibDem in opposition.
Not a consideration I expect the average voter to think about much tbh
Back in Blighty and the weather is beaut. Dunno what you’re all moaning about
LOL. There are plenty of specialist sites for weather chat. I visit many of them. Suggest you do likewise.
The weather will play its part in the election, though. It's been evident for a while that the pattern would bring us awful cold cloudy weather for the first half of the campaign - enough to get everyone thoroughly pissed off and cross, and blaming the government.
Then it would start to improve and feel much more summery in the closing stages. We could be in mid to high 20s next week for example. That gets people feeling optimistic for the future. Things can only get better.
Perfect evolution for Labour, but maybe not so bad for the Tories either. Not so good for Reform - I think they really need people feeling depressed and angry.
Fair point. What's your prognosis for early July? I'm cycling in Shropshire so keen to know regardless of the election!
So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.
Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.
It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.
Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.
It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.
Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.
All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.
*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.
Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.
It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.
One could argue that the IR happened partly because of the lack of slave labour in the UK but, yes, all that cheap raw cotton for those northern mills had to come from somewhere, and I think we know where.
Rather more important than cotton was coal, and it came from Britain. Britain was a huge resource exporter during that period.
I admit I'm no historian, but this extract from the Wikipedia* page on the Economic History of the UK seems to indicate that textile manufacturing was one of the main driving forces of the industrial revolution which, in turn, drove the demand for coal:
"The steam engine was invented and became a power supply that soon surpassed waterfalls and horsepower. The first practicable steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen, and was used for pumping water out of mines. A much more powerful steam engine was invented by James Watt; it had a reciprocating engine capable of powering machinery. The first steam-driven textile mills began to appear in the last quarter of the 18th century, and this transformed the industrial revolution into an urban phenomenon, greatly contributing to the appearance and rapid growth of industrial towns.
The progress of the textile trade soon outstripped the original supplies of raw materials. By the turn of the 19th century, imported American cotton had replaced wool in the North West of England, though wool remained the chief textile in Yorkshire. Textiles have been identified as the catalyst in technological change in this period. The application of steam power stimulated the demand for coal; the demand for machinery and rails stimulated the iron industry; and the demand for transportation to move raw material in and finished products out stimulated the growth of the canal system, and (after 1830) the railway system.
Such an unprecedented degree of economic growth was not sustained by domestic demand alone. The application of technology and the factory system created such levels of mass production and cost efficiency that enabled British manufacturers to export inexpensive cloth and other items worldwide."
* Yes, I know.
There was also the eighteenth century accumulation of capital via the sugar trade, which then relied on slavery to a greater extent even than later cotton production.
https://core.ac.uk/reader/288501190 ..The sugar trade targeting the domestic market generated an economic value of c.1 per cent of British GDP by the early 18th century, growing to around 4 per cent by the 1770s. After the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, the sugar trade seems to have experienced economichardships, contributing to a decreasing share of British GDP. Re-exports accounted for a fairly negligible share of British economic activity, except during war years when the value created could rise to around 1 to 2 per cent of national GDP...
In comparison, I think North Sea oil peaked at around 3.4% of UK GDP in the 80s.
Was listening to someone French this morning saying that French business is busy in talks with MLP and sucking up as they are infinitely more worried about what he described as the uncosted plans and potential tax rises by the left block than they are by a hard right controlled parliament.
Is it possible that Macron’s snap election call could turn out to be a worse decision than Rishi’s?
Ultimately, despite disagreeing with Labour, at least we should get at least four years of stability, maybe 8/9 if Starmer doesn’t cock up, whereas France is going to be all over the shop with a lame duck president, a polarised parliament, divisive Presidential elections in just under three years.
Rishi’s Tory seppuku could actually turn out to be his greatest act for the country in the medium term.
This here is a clear indicator of why capitalists are happier with the far right than the left - whether or not these plans are truly "uncosted" doesn't really matter to me - it's the idea of tax rises and any left wing policies that make businesses willing to go as far right as needed. The far right is not a threat to big business; indeed they are a boon to it, with mass privatisation and government contracts for specific things. The far right are also avid anti workers unions, organising society by the clear progression of dictators and dictated to - the father is the dictator in the house, the boss is the dictator in the workplace, the blessed leader is the dictator of politics, etc.
The far right is the antibodies of capitalism to the "threat" of left wing organising. Some of you may use this to argue that leftists should accept "centrism", some of you will gleefully attack the left as "woke" or "militant". But the reason we're seeing a repeat of the 20th century within global politics is simple - capitalism has sucked as much as it can out of workers with only minor immiseration, and now we're at the stage of mass immiseration. When that happens, the left organises. And when that happens - the reactionaries, well, react.
Big business still prefers the liberal centre right to the far right, not least as it needs immigrant labour the far right will deny it. It is also wary of the tariffs and protectionism of the far right.
It only prefers the far right to the hard left and its high taxes, nationalisations and high spending
Yes and no. Even liberal centrists like ideas like individual rights and collective bargaining, and as capitalism needs to squeeze more and more profit out of a system it has to attack those things - because the easiest cost to cut is wages and labour. And big business just want cheaper labour, not necessarily immigrant labour - if the far right turn up and say they will scrap the minimum wage and stop immigration big business will be more than happy knowing they have a captured labour pool they can pay like crap.
And tariffs and protectionism are bad for business, sure; but the far right will also do massive government contracts to the private sector, preferring the private sector to deliver for the National Good. Nazis did a huge mass of privatisation, as did the fascists of Italy and Spain. Hell, the Spanish fascists were directly at war with the anarchists in part because the left collectivised farming under anarchist principles and land owners wanted their land back!
Far right like Le Pen support increased minimum wages and state pensions
So whereas I thought I might have to vote LibDem, I’m no longer sure!
There is nothing about Newton Abbot that says Labour to me in any manner for a tactical vote. Lib Dem all the way.
Can I ask you please to be searingly honest? Are you a LibDem voter? Your “nothing […] in any manner” makes me less, not more, likely to believe you. It’s overdone.
Tactical.Vote didn’t even think about it, seemingly. They put LibDem from the word go.
Best for Britain took 3 weeks to weigh it up, carefully, and concluded that I should vote Labour.
I'm not convinced that a lot of "carefully" goes into in most of the tactical voting sites. They mostly appear to look at the MRPs and see which non-Conservative party is in the lead, then just recommend that one.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
Indeed. And with Newton Abbott history is your guide anyway, in its former guise in 01 and 05 it was held by LD expenses bad boy Richard Younger-Ross and the new boundaries aren't so out of place. Muscle memory makes LDs the challenger but it's a seat where Labour will be cocky and 'fancy it on the surrrrrrrge' and get in the way so it may well stay blue
A practical consideration, if you accept the overall pollling that suggests that Labour will win, is whether you want a Government or Opposition MP. A case for voting Labour in seats like Didcot and Wantage where there appears to be a 3-way marginal is that it's more useful to have some Labour MPs in Government representing uncharactaristic constituencies than one extra Tory or LibDem in opposition.
That's a stretch Nick - got to admire the lateral thinking there.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I mean, I would like this to be the case - but I don't see evidence of it as you do. Labour have made a point of sending Reeves and Streeting front and centre this campaign; the woman who doesn't want to raise taxes on any wealth and the man who wants to sell of bits of the NHS.
Reeves and Streeting are Blairites yes, Starmer and Rayner aren't, they are soft left Brownites. Rayner with a tinge of Corbynite too
Back in Blighty and the weather is beaut. Dunno what you’re all moaning about
LOL. There are plenty of specialist sites for weather chat. I visit many of them. Suggest you do likewise.
The weather will play its part in the election, though. It's been evident for a while that the pattern would bring us awful cold cloudy weather for the first half of the campaign - enough to get everyone thoroughly pissed off and cross, and blaming the government.
Then it would start to improve and feel much more summery in the closing stages. We could be in mid to high 20s next week for example. That gets people feeling optimistic for the future. Things can only get better.
Perfect evolution for Labour, but maybe not so bad for the Tories either. Not so good for Reform - I think they really need people feeling depressed and angry.
Fair point. What's your prognosis for early July? I'm cycling in Shropshire so keen to know regardless of the election!
I mean July 5th will be hot and sunny without question. Counterpoint to Rishi in the rain.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I mean, I would like this to be the case - but I don't see evidence of it as you do. Labour have made a point of sending Reeves and Streeting front and centre this campaign; the woman who doesn't want to raise taxes on any wealth and the man who wants to sell of bits of the NHS.
Reeves and Streeting are Blairites yes, Starmer and Rayner aren't, they are soft left Brownites. Rayner with a tinge of Corbynite too
I think you'll find they are all going to be Starmerites after 4th July.
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
Starmer is a social democrat, the LDs put out a social democrat manifesto. The Greens are hard left, Farage and Reform hard right.
The Tories still represent the liberal centre right and still are second to Labour in virtually every current poll
Starmer is a Cameroon. He has set out a Cameroon vision for the future. He has not put out a socially democratic manifesto. Do I know who Starmer is "in his heart" - no. But when we have the likes of Rory goddamn Stewart pointing out that the next Labour government is just going to do austerity lite, I think it's clear that the next government isn't doing anything particularly to the left.
No Starmer is a Brownite as will soon become apparent in government. Already his advisers are recommending increasing CGT on property owners and businesses, plus we have the end of the VAT exemption for private education etc.
Starmer is no Cameroon or Cleggite, he is not even a Blairite. Ideologically he is closer to John Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown or Harold Wilson than Blair
I mean, I would like this to be the case - but I don't see evidence of it as you do. Labour have made a point of sending Reeves and Streeting front and centre this campaign; the woman who doesn't want to raise taxes on any wealth and the man who wants to sell of bits of the NHS.
Reeves and Streeting are Blairites yes, Starmer and Rayner aren't, they are soft left Brownites. Rayner with a tinge of Corbynite too
I believe ruling out Blairism is on the grid for Keir tomorrow
I know shy Tories are historically a thing - but I also didn't see why people assumed the DKs were going to "come home" when it is so clear even typical Tories are upset with the party and how it has governed, and they seem to be loosing Tories to the "centre" and the right - with Starmer and the LDs stealing the wets who can't stand the culture war stuff and only care about the economy, and Farage parking his tanks on the lawn in the culture war sphere. I think we do really need to consider that the Tories will not be the party of opposition and are going to go extinct as a political force - if not fully in this election then in the near future (the only situation I see keeping the Tory Party alive is Farage being the only Reform MP and then crossing over to the Tories and becoming their leader. Which is a nightmare scenario in many ways....)
My reasoning is this.
Taking the step to vote Labour or Lib Dem for a habitual Tory voter is a big step. If a voter cannot take that step in an opinion poll, then doing so in the polling booth is unlikely.
Most voters are going to be angry about the actions of the party leadership, at Sunak and Truss. But when they vote it's the reassuring presence of their local Tory on the ballot paper. It's much easier to vote for the blameless local Tory than to support the party leadership. This is especially the case when the election outcome appears to be a forgone conclusion. Sunak won't be PM after the election anyway.
Under FPTP most political campaigning becomes negative. Only a vote for y can stop x. At the end of the day if you're a core Tory voter, someone who makes up the 20-30% of their support total, who else are you going to vote for who will stop Labour from winning your seat? If your Tory vote was never a positive vote for the Tories, but a negative vote against Labour, then you're trapped into making that vote regardless of how poor the Tories are. And, anyway, this time the Tories are bound to lose, so your Tory vote won't prolong the disaster of the incumbent government, but will act to restrain the worst excesses of the inevitable Labour government.
I think this is all enough to see the Tories back up to 29%. Their worst vote share ever, so not exactly a good result, but better than suggested by the opinion polls.
29% - I really don’t see the Tories getting 24% and that’s in danger
I can see the Tories getting 27% or so in the end if Rishi beats Starmer or has a solid performance at least in the final debate next week.
If Reform hold their current support or gain a bit from their manifesto I could see a result something like Labour 37%, Tories 27%, Reform 16%, LDs 10%, Greens 5%, SNP 3%
After three weeks in Moldova, Transnitria and Ukraine, the United Kingdom looks insanely prosperous and seductive. Affluent, sunny, no obvious bomb damage. Lush
Comments
Brighter today for the second day running. What’s going on?
I had my postal vote disallowed for the Police etc Commissioner election because my signature has changed, due to my (considerable) hand problems. Now I’m wondering if the several years old picture on my bus pass will be acceptable. (I’ve decided to vote in person this time, as I can’t guarantee my signature.)
Aside from the vile abuse going on some interesting financial points:
Places at the school - for secondary school age children - cost between £50,000 and £150,000 a year per child, depending on the support they need.
Last year, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council paid the school nearly £1m
Wirral council has paid out more than £2.2m in total since the school opened in 2021. Ofsted has rated the school “good”.
Panorama's undercover reporter met the school’s CEO, Alastair Saverimutto. He told her he had big ambitions for his Life School business saying he wanted “100 schools” and to become the “first billion-pound educational division in the country”.
Racism in China and Japan are still based on their own imperial histories and the influence of western imperialism - whether that is towards black people or the stereotypes of people from other East Asian countries. The construction of whiteness is easy to see when viewed historically - there was a time when the Japanese argued to be counted in whiteness and a time when Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans did not count as white.
Rishi just doesn't have a clue.
I take it there wasn't an extensive consideration of the fact it was black slave traders selling black slaves to colonial powers?
I don't think this sort of "approach" is going to stay the course in the long-term.
I doubt it'd be very popular amongst most British minority or immigrant communities either.
It managed to mention almost none of them.
I probably am subconsciously affected by handshakes: both the limp ones (eh?) but also the stupid bonecrushing ones (double eh?) but only to the extent it demonstrates a level of care or interest in meeting me.
"A hard-right 28-year-old could soon be France’s prime minister
Jordan Bardella is poised, social-media savvy and enigmatic"
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/06/17/a-hard-right-28-year-old-could-soon-be-frances-pm
No doubt I'll be ignored. But it made me feel better and gives me something of a defence.
My reply was 'Yes, the bigotry aimed against the privately educated, add in the latent homophobia' wasn't the reply they were expecting.
Very drole.
And that’s as far as I shall go into the trans issue on here, although I’m always bemused that otherwise intelligent people can be so uniformed about people transitioning from female to male. ( @Cyclefree ’s one-way definition of gender ideology as 'the belief that men can turn into women’ being the latest classic example.)
I’m off out. Far more important things to be engaged with than that issue on a political forum.
xx
https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1802627422333899161/photo/1
I prefer listening to podcasts, but did read "They Thought They Were Free, The Germans 1933-45" and "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning", and Behind the Bastards did an interesting couple of episodes on "The Nice Normal People that Made the Holocaust Possible" that discussed this issue. I do concede that the first book at least is based around talking to a few individual "normal Germans" who were Nazi supporters rather than based on psephology.
By chance (and personal request from two of them that they move into my team) none of the five people I manage happen to be "white men", and three are minorities, and all give me kind feedback.
They quite like that I treat them as individuals and don't have time for the gesture stuff.
On the other side it says "fans" and on the back "please explain"
Reform more trusted to tell the truth on immigration than either Lab or Con (R 60% trust Lab 48 Con 51)
Bet accordingly
They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.
What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.
It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.
The Best PM polling we need to see
I think PfP is right. Turnout looks like a sell, and stay-at-homes and protest voters might be up a tad.
As Best for Britain have chosen to embed Survation's data into their site - which is one of the less plausible projections IMO - I wouldn't give them any special credence.
That 16/1 looks ok then for anyone who can get it. If anyone has an account and can put a tenner on for me I'll be obliged. Happy to share any winnings with the charity of their choice.
Atb
PtP
"In Catholic regions Hitler polled relatively few votes, in Protestant regions much more; in other words, class was much less important than religion. It is also true that in working-class neighborhoods the Nazis did not do as well as in the wealthier quarters and that they did considerably better in small towns than in big cities.
Mr. Hamilton also maintains that the ''lower-middle-class theory'' seems to be untrue for cities, and that, broadly speaking, the higher the income in an electoral district, the greater the support for the Nazi Party. But his arguments are not wholly convincing; for a variety of reasons, he is more effective in demolishing old explanations than in providing new ones. One reason is technical: The data on which he bases his arguments are only approximate. The degree to which the author has immersed himself in local conditions in Germany and local politics is admirable; that era, after all, is a world that no longer exists and that the author, who did not know it at first hand, had to reconstruct on the basis of municipal statistics, Baedeker guides and other such sources."
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/20/books/a-mixed-following.html
My TV advice would be this: look outside your window. Can you see?
- A rugby ground
- Small fields with hedgerows
- A cathedral
- Orchards, vineyards or cattle
- Steep hillsides
- Huge fuck off great orange diamonds outside people's houses?
If so, then vote Lib Dem. If on the other hand you can see:
- A trading estate
- A university campus
- Railway sidings
- Distribution centres
- A distinct lack of orange diamonds
Then vote Labour.
support this.
My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.
Edit: Wikipedia says that they bought 200 in 1999.
Slavery wasn't efficient. And nor was the IR triggered by it.
This is just the latest fashionable BS.
LibDem Vote 2010 was 22% and they won 57 seats
LibDem Vote 2015 was 23% and they won 8 seats
Labour accuses Tories of planning unfunded tax cuts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxv0wdrn0o
..The Conservative manifesto is funded in large part by proposed cuts to spending on benefits, which the party says are not currently government policy.
But the chancellor wrote in a newsletter to constituents last week that the tax cuts in the Conservative manifesto would be funded by savings from "an enormous back to work programme (which I announced in the Autumn Statement last year)".
Labour seized on his comments as evidence that the welfare cuts “are not new” and “the money has been spent”.
However, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it was not true that the projected savings on welfare were already factored into economic forecasts.
Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Hunt's comments were “truly extraordinary”, and amounted to an admission that the Conservatives’ flagship welfare cuts involve “money that is already accounted for”.
Sir Keir added: “The money isn’t there and that’s the major problem.”
The Conservatives said Labour were in “complete denial” about the rise in the benefits bill and insisted that the savings they intend to use to fund tax cuts will come from new policies.
Government spending on health and disability-related benefits has risen by £20bn in real terms since 2019, and a further £11bn increase is forecast over the next five years, making this a significant policy challenge for whichever party wins the general election.
It is especially crucial for the Conservative Party because they have said they would cut £12bn a year in government spending on benefits compared to forecast levels by 2029.
Those savings make up around two-thirds of the money being used to fund manifesto pledges on tax cuts and increased defence spending...
Obviously the Conservative spending plans include a large dollop of fantasy (though nowhere near Farage's nonsense), but that's not an issue for them as they won't be in government.
But Labour are baselining their fiscal plans on what government is currently doing, so this isn't an entirely abstract debate.
"Character Matters".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOEMX6_A8MM
Some try to apply a national swing to a specific seat - which obviously does not work.
Others again claim to take into account the results of local elections - but then seem to ignore them. I strongly believe that local government election results do reflect the presence of a political party on the ground.
In the case of your Newton Abbot seat, Ms Heathener, do you know just how many Labour councillors there are currently at District and County level? This will tell you something about the strength of the Labour Party there, and whether or not it is a real challenger.
They probably only ask for id if you haven't got it.
LDs will almost certainly win some long shots and lose some theoretically easier targets.
Travel expert Simon Calder says there is a chance the MH370 mystery could finally be solved after British researchers found a signal that may lead them to the plane's location."
At 2 mins 30 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LiW-Xewb4Q
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/17/mh370-mystery-could-be-solved-by-underwater-microphones/
I think the point still stands that with percentages in the mid 20s, the results are unpredictable.
"The steam engine was invented and became a power supply that soon surpassed waterfalls and horsepower. The first practicable steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen, and was used for pumping water out of mines. A much more powerful steam engine was invented by James Watt; it had a reciprocating engine capable of powering machinery. The first steam-driven textile mills began to appear in the last quarter of the 18th century, and this transformed the industrial revolution into an urban phenomenon, greatly contributing to the appearance and rapid growth of industrial towns.
The progress of the textile trade soon outstripped the original supplies of raw materials. By the turn of the 19th century, imported American cotton had replaced wool in the North West of England, though wool remained the chief textile in Yorkshire. Textiles have been identified as the catalyst in technological change in this period. The application of steam power stimulated the demand for coal; the demand for machinery and rails stimulated the iron industry; and the demand for transportation to move raw material in and finished products out stimulated the growth of the canal system, and (after 1830) the railway system.
Such an unprecedented degree of economic growth was not sustained by domestic demand alone. The application of technology and the factory system created such levels of mass production and cost efficiency that enabled British manufacturers to export inexpensive cloth and other items worldwide."
* Yes, I know.
Vibes.
https://x.com/ProfDaveAndress/status/1795435589329973535
Then it would start to improve and feel much more summery in the closing stages. We could be in mid to high 20s next week for example. That gets people feeling optimistic for the future. Things can only get better.
Perfect evolution for Labour, but maybe not so bad for the Tories either. Not so good for Reform - I think they really need people feeling depressed and angry.
So for capitalism to kick off you need to have some initial capital. In the USSR, for example, they found their initial capital investment by selling Ukrainian grain, causing a famine.
For Britain, the enclosures did a little, and also the Highland clearances, to intensify wealth extraction from agriculture and provide capital. But the amazing profits from the slave trade, and early sugar plantations in Barbados, and other early Imperial adventures, did a lot of the initial heavy lifting. Which the Industrial Revolution then multiplied many times over.
As to how much of Britain's current wealth you would ascribe to the multiplication, and how much to the initial investment from slave-related profits, I really don't know.
Should all be there via the menus, these should be ordered by notional majority
More activists will turn out for the former than the latter
Martin Lewis tells me (I think we’re close friends because he emails me most days) that today is the last day for registrations.
On these polls it won’t change the results but it might change some seats, and it’s certainly relevant for a turnout bet.
Though I grant you have more experience of three-ways than most of us.
https://core.ac.uk/reader/288501190
..The sugar trade targeting the domestic market generated an economic value of c.1 per cent of British GDP by the early 18th century, growing to around 4 per cent by the 1770s. After the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, the sugar trade seems to have experienced economichardships, contributing to a decreasing share of British GDP. Re-exports accounted for a fairly negligible share of British economic activity, except during war years when the value created could rise to around 1 to 2 per cent of national GDP...
In comparison, I think North Sea oil peaked at around 3.4% of UK GDP in the 80s.
Party leader admits there has been trouble with ‘one or two’ would-be MPs but blames company performing background checks"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/farage-reform-stitched-up-by-candidate-vetting-firm/
If Reform hold their current support or gain a bit from their manifesto I could see a result something like Labour 37%, Tories 27%, Reform 16%, LDs 10%, Greens 5%, SNP 3%