I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
I worry about this too for my daughters, especially the darker one who is often asked where she is 'really' from ("Romford!"). I have one Indian-born friend with British citizenship who feels the same as those callers. I don't want to live in a country like that.
As a nation we need to change this vile narrative that Farage has fostered over three and a half decades.
Stop the boats and the narrative will change
Though small in number compared to overall immigration, the boats are totemic and Starmer has not stemmed the flow despite all his policies
Indeed Rwanda scheme is rising in popularity in the polls and certainly detaining all on landing and sending them immediately on block to a safe country to process their claims would do that
This is the big test for Starmer and one in one out will not cut the mustard
Well, yes, and perhaps a Rwanda-type solution would work though I'd love to see the proper costings of implementing such a soluton (as I would those advocating building super-detention centres on Rainham Marshes or West Falkland or wherever). As you repeatedly stated at the time, the possibility of ending up in a camp outside Kigali was seen as a deterrent among some intending to cross the Channel.
The problem is the debate has gone well beyond "the boats" and is now about integration and the place of some groups within British society. We cannot have a country where whole groups live in fear simply because their ethnicity or lifestyle or religion isn't what is recognised as "British" or "English" or have a situation, as we did after October 2023 and at other times in the past, where segments of the population are under attack from other groups as a result of events elsewhere.
Nor can we in any way condone open calls for the large scale deportation of such groups. Farage's problem, it seems to me, is his relatively jocular avuncular style is increasingly at odds with some of his more radical and vocal supporters who will abandon him for more extreme solutions if he is seen to be equivocating on any of this. Farage is the one who has to run hard to keep his growing and disparate electoral coalition together.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
I worry about this too for my daughters, especially the darker one who is often asked where she is 'really' from ("Romford!"). I have one Indian-born friend with British citizenship who feels the same as those callers. I don't want to live in a country like that.
As a nation we need to change this vile narrative that Farage has fostered over three and a half decades.
Stop the boats and the narrative will change
Though small in number compared to overall immigration, the boats are totemic and Starmer has not stemmed the flow despite all his policies
Indeed Rwanda scheme is rising in popularity in the polls and certainly detaining all on landing and sending them immediately on block to a safe country to process their claims would do that
This is the big test for Starmer and one in one out will not cut the mustard
Well, yes, and perhaps a Rwanda-type solution would work though I'd love to see the proper costings of implementing such a soluton (as I would those advocating building super-detention centres on Rainham Marshes or West Falkland or wherever). As you repeatedly stated at the time, the possibility of ending up in a camp outside Kigali was seen as a deterrent among some intending to cross the Channel.
The problem is the debate has gone well beyond "the boats" and is now about integration and the place of some groups within British society. We cannot have a country where whole groups live in fear simply because their ethnicity or lifestyle or religion isn't what is recognised as "British" or "English" or have a situation, as we did after October 2023 and at other times in the past, where segments of the population are under attack from other groups as a result of events elsewhere.
Nor can we in any way condone open calls for the large scale deportation of such groups. Farage's problem, it seems to me, is his relatively jocular avuncular style is increasingly at odds with some of his more radical and vocal supporters who will abandon him for more extreme solutions if he is seen to be equivocating on any of this. Farage is the one who has to run hard to keep his growing and disparate electoral coalition together.
Very interesting analysis of where the various party’s voters fall on by politics & by job category.
Concluding quote from that article:
“I understand the desire of white-collar politicos - be they spads, MPs, strategists, or journalists - to pretend that they are working class heroes. It’s a hackneyed enough theme of hundreds of British comedies and movies. Sometimes it’s quite endearing.
Right now, though, Labour’s strategists seem to be being pulled by the very strings of the puppets they think they are making dance. They have imagined a socially authoritarian working class Labour voter who really is long gone. And as they ventriloquize through their creation, they are following their fantasy’s grievances. The Andy Capp in their head has left containment and is making increasingly incessant demands.
All to avoid the shame of acknowledging the horrible, psychologically troubling truth. Labour has for a long time been a party of the PMC, by the PMC, for the PMC. It’s just, here’s the thing about the PMC. They are the electoral majority. And they are how Labour won, will win, and can only win.”
One metric I keep an eye on is the amount of stuff being carried on Russian railways. It's down about 14% since the war started but interestingly half of that has been in the last year. Not that I would trust all their official figures.
Their stock market also seems to be struggling after a good run post Trump's election win.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Of course you are splitting hairs. Even if "born and raised" is more accurate you knew what I meant.
Did humiliating me like one of Farage's Reform b*tches enhance the conversation?😭
I'm not trying to disagree with you! Please consider yourself agreed with, and certainly not humiliated. I have no issue with your point - I just wish 'born and bred' was used to mean 'born and bred' rather than 'born and raised'.
I'm all for pedantry, but brought up or raised is apparently a meaning, since 1548, according to OED.
I'd take it to mean born (for the 'born' part!) and lived for a long time (particularly during formative years) in a location, even if elsewhere now. My wife is Yorkshire born and bred, though her dad's a southerner. Her mum's from a long line of Yorkshire folk, though, so my wife might still pass the Cookie race laws?
Well I take it back. Surely 'bred' is redundant then? I maintain that my meaning OUGHT to be the correct one. Because otherwise that is an interesting circumstance we have no pithy phrase for.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Can you point to sources backing up your understanding of the meaning? The ones I immediately find tend towards born and raised?
(Not a criticism of you; I'm just interested.)
No, I can't (and I have looked before) - but surely 'born and bred' should mean 'born and bred'? I accept it's much more often used to mean 'born and raised' (and hopefully made this clear in my response to Pete - I wasn't trying to single him out for this) - but surely the common use is wrong? Surely the meanings of the words speak for themselves?
'bred' surely means raised, or reared? Or, at a push, conceived? I can't really see any connections between the word and past generations. Might be wrong though (and I'm finding this interesting...)
I would have thought describing (rather archaically) someone's breeding would be talking about who their parents and parents' parents and parents' parents' parents were? But I accept I am not right about the phrase. Though I should be.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Of course you are splitting hairs. Even if "born and raised" is more accurate you knew what I meant.
Did humiliating me like one of Farage's Reform b*tches enhance the conversation?😭
I'm not trying to disagree with you! Please consider yourself agreed with, and certainly not humiliated. I have no issue with your point - I just wish 'born and bred' was used to mean 'born and bred' rather than 'born and raised'.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
What a lazy, hackneyed comment. They were eligible because of their Irish heritage actually. The same rules on eligibility apply to all countries, just ask Owen Hargreaves.
Tuilagi is of course a fine old Somerset name.
What about the Vunipola brothers. As English as can be with their thick Pontypool accents.
I am distinctly ambivalent about south sea islanders representing England. There are few enough teams in the top tier of rugby as it is: just think of the teams Tonga, Samoa and Fiji could have if the richer countries didn't hoover up all their most talented players.
By far the worst at this are NZ and Aussie - lots of school places for talented rugby players from the Pacific, and then of course the route to being an All Black or Wallaby.
I'll tell you what gets my goat. Good honest yeoman stock from Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion havimg to sign their souls away to the RFU the moment they arrive through the gates of Hartpury College.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Of course you are splitting hairs. Even if "born and raised" is more accurate you knew what I meant.
Did humiliating me like one of Farage's Reform b*tches enhance the conversation?😭
I'm not trying to disagree with you! Please consider yourself agreed with, and certainly not humiliated. I have no issue with your point - I just wish 'born and bred' was used to mean 'born and bred' rather than 'born and raised'.
I'm all for pedantry, but brought up or raised is apparently a meaning, since 1548, according to OED.
I'd take it to mean born (for the 'born' part!) and lived for a long time (particularly during formative years) in a location, even if elsewhere now. My wife is Yorkshire born and bred, though her dad's a southerner. Her mum's from a long line of Yorkshire folk, though, so my wife might still pass the Cookie race laws?
Well I take it back. Surely 'bred' is redundant then? I maintain that my meaning OUGHT to be the correct one. Because otherwise that is an interesting circumstance we have no pithy phrase for.
Why don't we just verb ancestor? 'Born and ancestored'. What's not to like, as our American cousins might say.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Can you point to sources backing up your understanding of the meaning? The ones I immediately find tend towards born and raised?
(Not a criticism of you; I'm just interested.)
No, I can't (and I have looked before) - but surely 'born and bred' should mean 'born and bred'? I accept it's much more often used to mean 'born and raised' (and hopefully made this clear in my response to Pete - I wasn't trying to single him out for this) - but surely the common use is wrong? Surely the meanings of the words speak for themselves?
'bred' surely means raised, or reared? Or, at a push, conceived? I can't really see any connections between the word and past generations. Might be wrong though (and I'm finding this interesting...)
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Can you point to sources backing up your understanding of the meaning? The ones I immediately find tend towards born and raised?
(Not a criticism of you; I'm just interested.)
No, I can't (and I have looked before) - but surely 'born and bred' should mean 'born and bred'? I accept it's much more often used to mean 'born and raised' (and hopefully made this clear in my response to Pete - I wasn't trying to single him out for this) - but surely the common use is wrong? Surely the meanings of the words speak for themselves?
'bred' surely means raised, or reared? Or, at a push, conceived? I can't really see any connections between the word and past generations. Might be wrong though (and I'm finding this interesting...)
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Can you point to sources backing up your understanding of the meaning? The ones I immediately find tend towards born and raised?
(Not a criticism of you; I'm just interested.)
No, I can't (and I have looked before) - but surely 'born and bred' should mean 'born and bred'? I accept it's much more often used to mean 'born and raised' (and hopefully made this clear in my response to Pete - I wasn't trying to single him out for this) - but surely the common use is wrong? Surely the meanings of the words speak for themselves?
'bred' surely means raised, or reared? Or, at a push, conceived? I can't really see any connections between the word and past generations. Might be wrong though (and I'm finding this interesting...)
I would have thought describing (rather archaically) someone's breeding would be talking about who their parents and parents' parents and parents' parents' parents were? But I accept I am not right about the phrase. Though I should be.
Only Jobs, Musk, Trump and Farage have a Reality Distortion field that strong...
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I grew up from age 8 in Geneva, Vienna and Copenhagen. I'm not sure that tells anyone much about me. Like all generalisations, it breaks down when applied to individuals. Have I been a bit influenced by Denmark in particular, though? Sure.
Someone on here said it's all about education (Sunak is very very English!).
Kids who go to international schools don't get to call themselves the nationality within which that school happens to be.
You've lost me. But as for Sunak he's as English as me. Born and bred in England from "foreign" parents. Mine were Welsh.
A pedant notes: I don’t think that’s what ‘born and bred’ means. If you were born and bred somewhere, not only were you born there, but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents were from there. (By which measure, Sunak was born in England but not ‘born and bred’ here.) Otherwise ‘bred’ is redundant. It certainly doesn’t mean the same as ‘born and raised’ – which it’s often used as a synonym for. Arguably bred could be a synonym for ‘conceived’, but I really don’t want that to be the case.
That's me lost again.
My tongue was in my cheek, but the main thrust of my argument stands. As for "bred" you are splitting hairs, we are both children of immigrants, my parents were only second language English speakers. We both grew up and were educated in England. I can't see how you can put a cigarette paper between our upbringings.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm being pedantic. I do agree with you - on the spectrum from 'English' to 'not English', Rishi Sunak is right up at the former end. I just disagree that 'born and bred' is the phrase to use. But 90% of people use it the way you do. I am fighting a rearguard action for it in the same way that I am for 'disinterested' - because if we use 'born and bred' (or disinterested) to mean 'born and raised' (or indifferent) we no longer have a word to use when we definitely do want to say 'born and bred' (or disinterested).
Can you point to sources backing up your understanding of the meaning? The ones I immediately find tend towards born and raised?
(Not a criticism of you; I'm just interested.)
No, I can't (and I have looked before) - but surely 'born and bred' should mean 'born and bred'? I accept it's much more often used to mean 'born and raised' (and hopefully made this clear in my response to Pete - I wasn't trying to single him out for this) - but surely the common use is wrong? Surely the meanings of the words speak for themselves?
'bred' surely means raised, or reared? Or, at a push, conceived? I can't really see any connections between the word and past generations. Might be wrong though (and I'm finding this interesting...)
I would have thought describing (rather archaically) someone's breeding would be talking about who their parents and parents' parents and parents' parents' parents were? But I accept I am not right about the phrase. Though I should be.
Trying to have your biscuit and eating it? Or some such expression. Though it's with a fresh eye that I now see your point about the confusing and, in one sense, unfortunate meaning.
Never thought of 'bred' in your sense, though. Partly because the word comes after 'born', ergo implies upbringing.
Very interesting analysis of where the various party’s voters fall on by politics & by job category.
Concluding quote from that article:
“I understand the desire of white-collar politicos - be they spads, MPs, strategists, or journalists - to pretend that they are working class heroes. It’s a hackneyed enough theme of hundreds of British comedies and movies. Sometimes it’s quite endearing.
Right now, though, Labour’s strategists seem to be being pulled by the very strings of the puppets they think they are making dance. They have imagined a socially authoritarian working class Labour voter who really is long gone. And as they ventriloquize through their creation, they are following their fantasy’s grievances. The Andy Capp in their head has left containment and is making increasingly incessant demands.
All to avoid the shame of acknowledging the horrible, psychologically troubling truth. Labour has for a long time been a party of the PMC, by the PMC, for the PMC. It’s just, here’s the thing about the PMC. They are the electoral majority. And they are how Labour won, will win, and can only win.”
Thoughts?
It’s a very interesting article . Not sure though about his conclusion that PMC is the electoral majority. But I would agree that Labour are chasing a now mythical voter instead of trying to draw back support from what would be classed as lower hanging fruit in terms of the Lib Dem’s and Greens .
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Farage is a hideous, racist ****.
I think almost every Tory (or ex-Tory like myself) on this site believes that and openly says it.
Not enough.
And your party leaders are wringing their hands. Kemi considers Starmer's accusation as schoolboy insults, that being so she is tacitly agreeing that Starmer is wrong, and Farage and his policies are not racist. F*** him, f*** Reform then once you have done that take the attack to Labour if you wish.
You are losing it here and twisting words
Badenoch called both Starmer AND Farage as '2 schoolboys squabbling in the schoolyard '
Badenoch will next week lay our clear lines between Starmer AND Farage
No I'm not.
I know James O'Brexit isn't your thing, but have a look at the third hour on YouTube or Global Player. The Lady callers were in tears because they are abused by casual racists who tell them to "go home" despite them being third or fourth generation English. There were two or three of them explaining how intolerable life is today. They remember the abuse towards themselves and their parents in the 1970s and as the years went by the abuse was incrementally less marked than it was back in the day. And now it is back at 1970s levels and they blame the culture that Farage has propagated. No should have to live like that.
Badenoch has said nothing. I half expect her to call out Starmer for "calling" ( he didn't) Farage a racist.
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
But your wife was born in England, and I presume grew up here. John Barnes was born and lived in Jamaica until he was 12. I don't see why it would be racist to say your wife is more English than John Barnes.
If John Barnes had a brother twelve years younger than him, born in North London and never stepping foot in Jamaica, surely he would be slightly less Jamaican than his older brother?
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
About 11% of Americans have Irish ancestry, compared to about 14% with English ancestry, which is amazing when you consider how much larger the English population has been than the Irish.
It's because of the Irish experience of emigration, that was so prevalent that the Irish population continued to decline after the famine and didn't reach a minimum until the 1960s, that the Irish have tended to maintain stronger links between emigrant communities and family back home.
So, well, you might find it "amusing", but the main reason it happens is that the English fucked up Ireland so very badly that the majority of people were forced to leave the place. Which doesn't seem that amusing to me, really.
Presumably that's based on self identification. America is such a melting pot, I would guess the numbers with some Engish ancestry are far higher, and the same for Irish. Most African Americans have some British or Irish ancestry, IIRC.
Yes. A lot of Americans who identify as simply American will obviously be immigrants of one sort or another.
Although it seems to be that there are more Americans who self-report German ancestry than either English or Irish ancestry. Just as with industrialisation, immigration to the US seems to be something that the English took an early lead on, but the Germans later surpassed us.
Because Americans mostly ended up speaking English we sometimes have an assumption of thinking that they're mostly of British descent, but more immigrants will have been from the European continent.
Oh for sure, the US had a huge volume of German immigration, and I think it's quite a German influenced country in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that Americans got their prodigious work ethic or straight talking attitude from us!
There is a slight anomaly with the US “English descendants” which can be detected both by anecdotes and census figures. There are a chunk of Americans who describe themselves as “American” and these, through studies generally end up being of largely English descent.
When you add together “single” self expressed identity with those who express multiple backgrounds English is a much larger proportion.
Now with huge apologies to the native Americans, there is probably a distinction amongst the “first movers” or “white natives” in that the majority of the early immigrants, especially those with position, money and control to the US in the 13 colonies were English origin and its from the 13 colonies that the US effectively comes from.
So a lot of people who were “English” also were there for the revolution and so had strong reasons to identify not with the old country but with their new one they had spilt blood for.
Because these were the new incumbent masters of the new country they were less likely to hold onto the old country identity and then set themselves apart from “newcomers”.
Their financial and other structural advantages kept them separate from the incoming Irish and Italians and Germans to a large extent and so were more likely to be referred to as WASPs than English-Americans.
I have many friends and associates who are very much families that proudly trace themselves back to pre revolutionary times and coming over from England, and if you pushed them they would say they were English American but I think because they had a security in the early days and a confidence they didn’t hold onto some other crutch for tribal support etc.
The funny thing is that Biden for example has more English ancestry than Irish but to a lot of Americans there is infinitely more romance in claiming Irish ancestry and all that entails than to claim to be English American. Whilst being descended from the Mayflower settlers or Daughters of the revolution has cachet it doesn’t bring a tear to the eye like hearing Danny boy in a fake Irish bar crying over your imagined relatives all looking like Leo Di Caprio fleeing Ireland having lost the family potato to the evil Brits.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Nigel Farage has said that he wishes to change Britain's immigration policies. The proposed change is not racist, and though it is never nice if people feel upset, preventing people from feeling upset is not the measure of a good policy. Indeed it is quite corrosive to form policies on the basis that they cannot upset anyone. That's how you get the Government spending more and more, regulating more and more, and effective dictatorship by Mumsnet.
The UK immigration policy is chaotic and unsustainable. Your two most favoured Prime Ministers sent unbridled immigration through the roof. Failure to integrate is a problem I would concede too. That isn't Farage's recent narrative. He says he's sending "home" people who have been here for decades. The fact that he is exempting EU citizens ( I suspect you know more about that that I do- I picked it up on here earlier) speaks volumes about why he is sending specific people "home".
I despise his racism. At least Yaxley-Lennon spells his out.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Farage is a hideous, racist ****.
I think almost every Tory (or ex-Tory like myself) on this site believes that and openly says it.
Not enough.
And your party leaders are wringing their hands. Kemi considers Starmer's accusation as schoolboy insults, that being so she is tacitly agreeing that Starmer is wrong, and Farage and his policies are not racist. F*** him, f*** Reform then once you have done that take the attack to Labour if you wish.
You are losing it here and twisting words
Badenoch called both Starmer AND Farage as '2 schoolboys squabbling in the schoolyard '
Badenoch will next week lay our clear lines between Starmer AND Farage
No I'm not.
I know James O'Brexit isn't your thing, but have a look at the third hour on YouTube or Global Player. The Lady callers were in tears because they are abused by casual racists who tell them to "go home" despite them being third or fourth generation English. There were two or three of them explaining how intolerable life is today. They remember the abuse towards themselves and their parents in the 1970s and as the years went by the abuse was incrementally less marked than it was back in the day. And now it is back at 1970s levels and they blame the culture that Farage has propagated. No should have to live like that.
Badenoch has said nothing. I half expect her to call out Starmer for "calling" ( he didn't) Farage a racist.
It’s clear that a Reform government will make the environment even more hostile than now .
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
I will know more about her ideas for the future, her acceptance of past errors, and clear blue water with Farage and his despicable deportation proposals, which have no place in our society, following her conference speech next week
I am open minded, but if she fails to seize the moment than the conservative party will be in a very difficult place as will her future leadership
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Farage is a hideous, racist ****.
I think almost every Tory (or ex-Tory like myself) on this site believes that and openly says it.
Not enough.
And your party leaders are wringing their hands. Kemi considers Starmer's accusation as schoolboy insults, that being so she is tacitly agreeing that Starmer is wrong, and Farage and his policies are not racist. F*** him, f*** Reform then once you have done that take the attack to Labour if you wish.
You are losing it here and twisting words
Badenoch called both Starmer AND Farage as '2 schoolboys squabbling in the schoolyard '
Badenoch will next week lay our clear lines between Starmer AND Farage
No I'm not.
I know James O'Brexit isn't your thing, but have a look at the third hour on YouTube or Global Player. The Lady callers were in tears because they are abused by casual racists who tell them to "go home" despite them being third or fourth generation English. There were two or three of them explaining how intolerable life is today. They remember the abuse towards themselves and their parents in the 1970s and as the years went by the abuse was incrementally less marked than it was back in the day. And now it is back at 1970s levels and they blame the culture that Farage has propagated. No should have to live like that.
Badenoch has said nothing. I half expect her to call out Starmer for "calling" ( he didn't) Farage a racist.
It’s clear that a Reform government will make the environment even more hostile than now .
The problem with Farage and Reform is they have already made it hostile for some by their pronouncements
This is unacceptable, and why I will never vote for Farage and Reform and why I am hoping the conservatives can carve out a vastly different offering, because their responsibility is huge if the country is to avoid PM Farage
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
About 11% of Americans have Irish ancestry, compared to about 14% with English ancestry, which is amazing when you consider how much larger the English population has been than the Irish.
It's because of the Irish experience of emigration, that was so prevalent that the Irish population continued to decline after the famine and didn't reach a minimum until the 1960s, that the Irish have tended to maintain stronger links between emigrant communities and family back home.
So, well, you might find it "amusing", but the main reason it happens is that the English fucked up Ireland so very badly that the majority of people were forced to leave the place. Which doesn't seem that amusing to me, really.
Presumably that's based on self identification. America is such a melting pot, I would guess the numbers with some Engish ancestry are far higher, and the same for Irish. Most African Americans have some British or Irish ancestry, IIRC.
Yes. A lot of Americans who identify as simply American will obviously be immigrants of one sort or another.
Although it seems to be that there are more Americans who self-report German ancestry than either English or Irish ancestry. Just as with industrialisation, immigration to the US seems to be something that the English took an early lead on, but the Germans later surpassed us.
Because Americans mostly ended up speaking English we sometimes have an assumption of thinking that they're mostly of British descent, but more immigrants will have been from the European continent.
Oh for sure, the US had a huge volume of German immigration, and I think it's quite a German influenced country in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that Americans got their prodigious work ethic or straight talking attitude from us!
There is a slight anomaly with the US “English descendants” which can be detected both by anecdotes and census figures. There are a chunk of Americans who describe themselves as “American” and these, through studies generally end up being of largely English descent.
When you add together “single” self expressed identity with those who express multiple backgrounds English is a much larger proportion.
Now with huge apologies to the native Americans, there is probably a distinction amongst the “first movers” or “white natives” in that the majority of the early immigrants, especially those with position, money and control to the US in the 13 colonies were English origin and its from the 13 colonies that the US effectively comes from.
So a lot of people who were “English” also were there for the revolution and so had strong reasons to identify not with the old country but with their new one they had spilt blood for.
Because these were the new incumbent masters of the new country they were less likely to hold onto the old country identity and then set themselves apart from “newcomers”.
Their financial and other structural advantages kept them separate from the incoming Irish and Italians and Germans to a large extent and so were more likely to be referred to as WASPs than English-Americans.
I have many friends and associates who are very much families that proudly trace themselves back to pre revolutionary times and coming over from England, and if you pushed them they would say they were English American but I think because they had a security in the early days and a confidence they didn’t hold onto some other crutch for tribal support etc.
The funny thing is that Biden for example has more English ancestry than Irish but to a lot of Americans there is infinitely more romance in claiming Irish ancestry and all that entails than to claim to be English American. Whilst being descended from the Mayflower settlers or Daughters of the revolution has cachet it doesn’t bring a tear to the eye like hearing Danny boy in a fake Irish bar crying over your imagined relatives all looking like Leo Di Caprio fleeing Ireland having lost the family potato to the evil Brits.
German American pride was a big thing until the war. Parades and all sorts. Were it not for the war, German Americans might be as obsessed with their heritage as Italian Americans or Irish Americans. English Americans as you say, not so much.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
But your wife was born in England, and I presume grew up here. John Barnes was born and lived in Jamaica until he was 12. I don't see why it would be racist to say your wife is more English than John Barnes.
If John Barnes had a brother twelve years younger than him, born in North London and never stepping foot in Jamaica, surely he would be slightly less Jamaican than his older brother?
You're completely right.
But essentially there are two types of being English (or whatever).
The first is whether you can rightly call yourself a fully-fledged member of the society that is England. This isn't a really hard thing to do - if you go to the supermarket, chat about the weather with another random person. Perhaps more than that, but if you fit in then you're English.
The second is merely about history. If you're descended from a long line of people that have done the first type of Englishness then you have a little more to be English about.
The first type is the only one that matters, but its really quite nice to have the second type merely on a personal basis.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
FPT: Off topic, but cheering: The winner in this American election is impressive:
Suffering from a dangling tooth on a broken jaw, grizzled Fat Bear Week veteran 32 “Chunk” handily defeated an extremely large 856 to become the 2025 champion.
Now in its 11th year, the annual bracket tournament celebrates the bears of Katmai National Park and Preserve as they bulk up for hibernation. Beyond the festive week of online voting, fans also keep track of their favorite bears from spring to fall by watching the Explore.org live cameras positioned around the park in Alaska.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
There seems to be a trend online of people screeching "Racism doesn't mean anything any more!"
I take that as shorthand for the person saying: "I'm a racist, but I don't like being told it!"
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
About 11% of Americans have Irish ancestry, compared to about 14% with English ancestry, which is amazing when you consider how much larger the English population has been than the Irish.
It's because of the Irish experience of emigration, that was so prevalent that the Irish population continued to decline after the famine and didn't reach a minimum until the 1960s, that the Irish have tended to maintain stronger links between emigrant communities and family back home.
So, well, you might find it "amusing", but the main reason it happens is that the English fucked up Ireland so very badly that the majority of people were forced to leave the place. Which doesn't seem that amusing to me, really.
It's surely also because when they got to America the Irish had large catholic families with 8-10 kids while the English probably didn't.
More than half of Americans who identify as Irish identify as of Protestant Irish descent.
Interesting, I didn't know they had that many drum bangers there.
During the Troubles, the "Irish origins" protestants would still often put a note in the bucket "for the boys".
Racism. Nationality. I always have trouble with this. My father was Welsh, my mother English and I was born in England but I've a Welsh name and was always taught to think of myself as Welsh. And I'm proud to do so, although I had some hassle at school. I support Welsh sports teams, except in cricket, where I support England and Essex. I describe myself as British I have granddaughters whose mother is Thai and whose father (my son, mother English) Is English/British. They tend to describe themselves as Thai, and support Thai sport teams, although they speak better English than Thai, since they went to an English-language school in Bangkok. I shall ask my elder granddaughter, now at an Australian university, how she now describes herself, when they come here for Christmas!
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
About 11% of Americans have Irish ancestry, compared to about 14% with English ancestry, which is amazing when you consider how much larger the English population has been than the Irish.
It's because of the Irish experience of emigration, that was so prevalent that the Irish population continued to decline after the famine and didn't reach a minimum until the 1960s, that the Irish have tended to maintain stronger links between emigrant communities and family back home.
So, well, you might find it "amusing", but the main reason it happens is that the English fucked up Ireland so very badly that the majority of people were forced to leave the place. Which doesn't seem that amusing to me, really.
It's surely also because when they got to America the Irish had large catholic families with 8-10 kids while the English probably didn't.
More than half of Americans who identify as Irish identify as of Protestant Irish descent.
Interesting, I didn't know they had that many drum bangers there.
During the Troubles, the "Irish origins" protestants would still often put a note in the bucket "for the boys".
Under today's "rules of engagement", we would probably have been entitled to bomb the Irish quarters of Chicago, Boston and New York.
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
They've got maybe 3 months from now to talk economics into and beyond the budget before the New Year takes us into May election mode. Crossings by boat should decline a bit in the worse weather so id suggest they take the opportunity to start with Tory v137. Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
I can’t believe I’m watching interviews of city mayors talking about how they are coordinating with other mayors to discuss how to protect their residents FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
I know we are “used to it” but it is absolutely insane
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Nigel Farage has said that he wishes to change Britain's immigration policies. The proposed change is not racist, and though it is never nice if people feel upset, preventing people from feeling upset is not the measure of a good policy. Indeed it is quite corrosive to form policies on the basis that they cannot upset anyone. That's how you get the Government spending more and more, regulating more and more, and effective dictatorship by Mumsnet.
The UK immigration policy is chaotic and unsustainable. Your two most favoured Prime Ministers sent unbridled immigration through the roof. Failure to integrate is a problem I would concede too. That isn't Farage's recent narrative. He says he's sending "home" people who have been here for decades. The fact that he is exempting EU citizens ( I suspect you know more about that that I do- I picked it up on here earlier) speaks volumes about why he is sending specific people "home".
I despise his racism. At least Yaxley-Lennon spells his out.
Surely you should be happy he's exempting EU citizens because the alternative is blowing up the EU withdrawal agreement and trade deal which depends on it. I'm sure if this wasn't a consequence he'd happily kick out the EU citizens too. This is showing a level of pragmatism I didn't expect from reform that they're adjusting their policies within the bounds of the possible rather than going for a nuclear approach which will blow up a trade deal which drives 5-7% of our GDP to deport maybe 400k people.
I can’t believe I’m watching interviews of city mayors talking about how they are coordinating with other mayors to discuss how to protect their residents FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
I know we are “used to it” but it is absolutely insane
I can easily see a civil war erupting in the United States. It may be brief, or it may be long, and may end up with secession. If so, Putin and Xi will have spent their money well.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I find this stuff odd. For sure, there probably are elements that don't integrate to mean that being raised here doesn't make you English etc. But I doubt it's that many.
I actually have a bigger issue with the reverse. Joe Biden's claims to be Irish wind me up no end.
I've always been amused by the threshold to be Irish, I remember in the 1980s/90s when people who had never been to Ireland in their lives but somehow became eligible to play for Ireland because of a grandmother/or the fact they once drank a pint of Guinness.
About 11% of Americans have Irish ancestry, compared to about 14% with English ancestry, which is amazing when you consider how much larger the English population has been than the Irish.
It's because of the Irish experience of emigration, that was so prevalent that the Irish population continued to decline after the famine and didn't reach a minimum until the 1960s, that the Irish have tended to maintain stronger links between emigrant communities and family back home.
So, well, you might find it "amusing", but the main reason it happens is that the English fucked up Ireland so very badly that the majority of people were forced to leave the place. Which doesn't seem that amusing to me, really.
It's surely also because when they got to America the Irish had large catholic families with 8-10 kids while the English probably didn't.
More than half of Americans who identify as Irish identify as of Protestant Irish descent.
In that case, they're likely to be Scots-Irish due to the (original) plantations. Quite a few US Presidents have Scots-Irish heritage. In one of those Kevin Bacon moments, LIz Truss lived a few yards from and probably attended the kirk/church in which Ronald Reagan's ancestors worshiped.
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
I will know more about her ideas for the future, her acceptance of past errors, and clear blue water with Farage and his despicable deportation proposals, which have no place in our society, following her conference speech next week
I am open minded, but if she fails to seize the moment than the conservative party will be in a very difficult place as will her future leadership
Nothing doing for the Tories until at least this: They look and act as if they are interested in winning elections for reasons which reflect both unique selling points and actual convictions which they have taken the trouble to communicate clearly to everyone. And until they find a charismatic leader who is honest and dependable and knows in what direction they are going and can communicate a plan, not based on focus groups, to a sceptical public.
And, IMO, nothing doing until it is unequivocal that they are not Reformlite.
I think this remains true unless and until Reform collapse, after which all bets are off.
I can’t believe I’m watching interviews of city mayors talking about how they are coordinating with other mayors to discuss how to protect their residents FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
I know we are “used to it” but it is absolutely insane
I can easily see a civil war erupting in the United States. It may be brief, or it may be long, and may end up with secession. If so, Putin and Xi will have spent their money well.
I can certainly see secession looming.
I just don't see how the blue states will tolerate this in the medium to long term.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
They've got maybe 3 months from now to talk economics into and beyond the budget before the New Year takes us into May election mode. Crossings by boat should decline a bit in the worse weather so id suggest they take the opportunity to start with Tory v137. Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
Those with long memories may recall Kenneth Baker's bravura performance at the 1990 local elections when, following Conservative advances in both Wandsworth and Westminster, he was able to make the narrative about the results being good for the Party and Government when in fact the Tories lost ground and votes but that loss only really came to light on the Friday. On the Thursday evening, the Conservatives did well and that convinced many it was a good set of local elections for the party when it wasn't.
I was in Sutton and it was the first election where the LDs won majority control instead of having to rely on the Mayor's casting vote and that began the journey to Paul Burstow and Tom Brake winning the Parliamentary seats in 1997.
London will be fascinating - IF the Conservatives can take a couple of Boroughs such as Barnet and Westminster off Labour early, they may be able to mask later losses to Reform in places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering.
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
There were female callers to James O'Brien this morning in tears because they feel unsafe in the country of their birth. It really is heartbreaking. They feel unsafe because the culture of fear that Farage and his vile minions have propagated. I f***in' despise Farage and Reform, and for once good on Starmer for calling out their racist bastardry.
His alleged schoolday anti-Semitism, his vile race-baiting politics and his dislike of people whose colour is darker than his pasty mush should be called out everyday and not celebrated. I posted earlier a Telegraph piece reporting that a Reform councillor in Cumbria? had promised to "shoot Starmer myself", yet according to Yusuf Starmer calling Reform POLICIES racist means Starmer has put a target on Farage's back.
Although when Farage made his broadcast one couldn't deny it was clever because the BBC and the Mail would deliberately misinterpret what Starmer had stated as a real and present threat. It was clever, but it is straight from the Trump playbook. The ghosts of the 1930s are here.
Come on you Tories, call this Charlatan who will devastate the country you love, out. Calling out Farage doesn't mean you don't support stopping the small boats.
Nigel Farage has said that he wishes to change Britain's immigration policies. The proposed change is not racist, and though it is never nice if people feel upset, preventing people from feeling upset is not the measure of a good policy. Indeed it is quite corrosive to form policies on the basis that they cannot upset anyone. That's how you get the Government spending more and more, regulating more and more, and effective dictatorship by Mumsnet.
The UK immigration policy is chaotic and unsustainable. Your two most favoured Prime Ministers sent unbridled immigration through the roof. Failure to integrate is a problem I would concede too. That isn't Farage's recent narrative. He says he's sending "home" people who have been here for decades. The fact that he is exempting EU citizens ( I suspect you know more about that that I do- I picked it up on here earlier) speaks volumes about why he is sending specific people "home".
I despise his racism. At least Yaxley-Lennon spells his out.
As has been mentioned here, retrospective action to cancel ILR for those already granted it would have been required had no action been taken to delay the status being granted to the Boriswave migrants. If the granting of it is delayed, so that those hundreds of thousands do not receive the right to claim state benefits and to bring over their families before Reform get into Government, it will not be needed, but this wasn't the case when the policy was announced.
At the moment, the debate is moving in the right direction with promises of action from all parties, but until the Labour Party policy is disclosed fully and its ramifications digested, it would be foolish of Reform to rescind their current stance.
Chris Mason now concocting more faux outrage over absolutely nothing . He should be fired and go and work for Reform as he clearly can’t stop fellating Farage .
There is clearly an anti modern anti western and I would argue anti intellectual aspect to the left. It's pointless to deny it. If your agenda is absolute equality you can't really support anything that judges, discriminates or excels. The trouble is that whilst it has usually been a crackpot fringe, it has managed to infiltrate universities and other institutions. It's a menace that needs challenging.
Black intellectuals in the US like Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter have been among those most vehemently challenging it because they see the damage it is doing.
I can’t believe I’m watching interviews of city mayors talking about how they are coordinating with other mayors to discuss how to protect their residents FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
I know we are “used to it” but it is absolutely insane
I can easily see a civil war erupting in the United States. It may be brief, or it may be long, and may end up with secession. If so, Putin and Xi will have spent their money well.
I can certainly see secession looming.
I just don't see how the blue states will tolerate this in the medium to long term.
I've been saying this for a while, the path Trump is on leads inexorably to the break up of the US. Blue states are already seeing troops patrol their cities, people being snatched off the street by masked goons who answer only to Trump, federal funds illegally withheld, and laws completely disregarded by the federal government.
At some point the state governments will have to decide if they continue to let this happen or take steps to protect their people.
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
They've got maybe 3 months from now to talk economics into and beyond the budget before the New Year takes us into May election mode. Crossings by boat should decline a bit in the worse weather so id suggest they take the opportunity to start with Tory v137. Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
Those with long memories may recall Kenneth Baker's bravura performance at the 1990 local elections when, following Conservative advances in both Wandsworth and Westminster, he was able to make the narrative about the results being good for the Party and Government when in fact the Tories lost ground and votes but that loss only really came to light on the Friday. On the Thursday evening, the Conservatives did well and that convinced many it was a good set of local elections for the party when it wasn't.
I was in Sutton and it was the first election where the LDs won majority control instead of having to rely on the Mayor's casting vote and that began the journey to Paul Burstow and Tom Brake winning the Parliamentary seats in 1997.
London will be fascinating - IF the Conservatives can take a couple of Boroughs such as Barnet and Westminster off Labour early, they may be able to mask later losses to Reform in places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering.
I expect them to get brutalised in Havering (fortunately for them it won't be a council loss) and Bexley will likely go Reform. Bromley a bit tougher - they might just about hang on but probably it goes NoC, Tories largest party. So, yes to compensate they will be looking at Westminster (pretty likely imo) and Barnet or perhaps Wandsworth. And holding on to Harrow (likely) and Hillingdon (maybe, probabky OK I think), oh and Kensington of course The other interesting one might be Croydon.
There is clearly an anti modern anti western and I would argue anti intellectual aspect to the left. It's pointless to deny it. If your agenda is absolute equality you can't really support anything that judges, discriminates or excels. The trouble is that whilst it has usually been a crackpot fringe, it has managed to infiltrate universities and other institutions. It's a menace that needs challenging.
Black intellectuals in the US like Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter have been among those most vehemently challenging it because they see the damage it is doing.
*Some* on the left think that way. Not all, by a long shot.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I don't really set any store by this racism polling, except to say that the 'not racist/don't know' people are Reform's voting pool, and plenty big enough.
If Reform are seen as more racist than they were, it could harm them a bit in London I suppose, where they weren't overwhelmingly popular anyway. That augers well for the Tories, if they get Boris to be their candidate.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
There is clearly an anti modern anti western and I would argue anti intellectual aspect to the left. It's pointless to deny it. If your agenda is absolute equality you can't really support anything that judges, discriminates or excels. The trouble is that whilst it has usually been a crackpot fringe, it has managed to infiltrate universities and other institutions. It's a menace that needs challenging.
Black intellectuals in the US like Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter have been among those most vehemently challenging it because they see the damage it is doing.
*Some* on the left think that way. Not all, by a long shot.
The trouble is that even if people don't agree with it they are very reluctant to publicly challenge it. And what are the principles that they want to embed in a modern education system?
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
Which is all fair. Algebra and algorithms sound Arabic because they are
But the woke-Nazis went beyond that into denouncing maths itself as racist. “The idea of a correct answer is white supremacy” etc
Interestingly - for me - it’s when this maths::racist shit happened in the 2010s that I first really understood that wokeness was a threat. Not a fad. That it was coming for basic truths, and the enlightenment
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
They've got maybe 3 months from now to talk economics into and beyond the budget before the New Year takes us into May election mode. Crossings by boat should decline a bit in the worse weather so id suggest they take the opportunity to start with Tory v137. Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
Those with long memories may recall Kenneth Baker's bravura performance at the 1990 local elections when, following Conservative advances in both Wandsworth and Westminster, he was able to make the narrative about the results being good for the Party and Government when in fact the Tories lost ground and votes but that loss only really came to light on the Friday. On the Thursday evening, the Conservatives did well and that convinced many it was a good set of local elections for the party when it wasn't.
I was in Sutton and it was the first election where the LDs won majority control instead of having to rely on the Mayor's casting vote and that began the journey to Paul Burstow and Tom Brake winning the Parliamentary seats in 1997.
London will be fascinating - IF the Conservatives can take a couple of Boroughs such as Barnet and Westminster off Labour early, they may be able to mask later losses to Reform in places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering.
I expect them to get brutalised in Havering (fortunately for them it won't be a council loss) and Bexley will likely go Reform. Bromley a bit tougher - they might just about hang on but probably it goes NoC, Tories largest party. So, yes to compensate they will be looking at Westminster (pretty likely imo) and Barnet or perhaps Wandsworth. And holding on to Harrow (likely) and Hillingdon (maybe, probabky OK I think), oh and Kensington of course The other interesting one might be Croydon.
Trying to make predictions 7 months out from an election in such a volatile political environment seems the very epitome of futility but that's what we do, isn't it?
I think Bromley is going to be fascinating - I suppose the key question is what will or might be the scale of any Reform vote and where will it be at its strongest?
Ditto Croydon - I can see both Labour and the Conservatives losing seats in both Boroughs but ask me again in six months and I might have a better idea.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I hoped Starmer pre the election was what we got but we didn't sadly
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
But your wife was born in England, and I presume grew up here. John Barnes was born and lived in Jamaica until he was 12. I don't see why it would be racist to say your wife is more English than John Barnes.
If John Barnes had a brother twelve years younger than him, born in North London and never stepping foot in Jamaica, surely he would be slightly less Jamaican than his older brother?
I don't consider myself to be English so I'm not going to police the boundaries of Englishness!
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I hoped Starmer pre the election was what we got but we didn't sadly
The minge vase was already ringing very hollow before the election if one cared to listen.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
The point you make is the point the people mentioned in the articles make: that mathematical discoveries have often been assigned to people who were not their originators, for cultural reasons.
But that's not saying that 'maths is racist". It's saying that racism (and other isms) can intrude into maths, as it can into many other fields. And when it does, it can be racist.
Look at the title of the sciam article; that agrees with the point you made, doesn't it? And even the byline: "Mathematicians want to think their field is a meritocracy, but bias, harassment and exclusion persist" should hardly be controversial.
I'm no Conservative but I've done politics long enough to recognise a party in trouble when I see one.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is an opportunity for Badenoch to make her case and address those who reject Starmer and Farage, as I do, at the upcoming conservative conference
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
At the moment, it's going to be about principles rather than detailed policies given we are so far from an election.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
They've got maybe 3 months from now to talk economics into and beyond the budget before the New Year takes us into May election mode. Crossings by boat should decline a bit in the worse weather so id suggest they take the opportunity to start with Tory v137. Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
Those with long memories may recall Kenneth Baker's bravura performance at the 1990 local elections when, following Conservative advances in both Wandsworth and Westminster, he was able to make the narrative about the results being good for the Party and Government when in fact the Tories lost ground and votes but that loss only really came to light on the Friday. On the Thursday evening, the Conservatives did well and that convinced many it was a good set of local elections for the party when it wasn't.
I was in Sutton and it was the first election where the LDs won majority control instead of having to rely on the Mayor's casting vote and that began the journey to Paul Burstow and Tom Brake winning the Parliamentary seats in 1997.
London will be fascinating - IF the Conservatives can take a couple of Boroughs such as Barnet and Westminster off Labour early, they may be able to mask later losses to Reform in places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering.
I expect them to get brutalised in Havering (fortunately for them it won't be a council loss) and Bexley will likely go Reform. Bromley a bit tougher - they might just about hang on but probably it goes NoC, Tories largest party. So, yes to compensate they will be looking at Westminster (pretty likely imo) and Barnet or perhaps Wandsworth. And holding on to Harrow (likely) and Hillingdon (maybe, probabky OK I think), oh and Kensington of course The other interesting one might be Croydon.
Trying to make predictions 7 months out from an election in such a volatile political environment seems the very epitome of futility but that's what we do, isn't it?
I think Bromley is going to be fascinating - I suppose the key question is what will or might be the scale of any Reform vote and where will it be at its strongest?
Ditto Croydon - I can see both Labour and the Conservatives losing seats in both Boroughs but ask me again in six months and I might have a better idea.
Provisional thoughts of course! Yes the situation can and likely will change. On Bromley, the by election recently was quite interesting and informative. Bromley Common was a ward the New Statesman analysis suggests Labour took in July 2024 so not the heart of Tory strength but Reform took it in a tight race. Apply the swing there to the suggested ward result from July 24 and Bromley and Biggin Hill parliamentary seat would be an ultra marginal RefCon fight. Apples and pears a bit I know but it all suggests B and B and Bromley council will be keenly contested. I guess Im expecting the Tory vote to be keener to turn out for a full borough election than a one off by election
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I hoped Starmer pre the election was what we got but we didn't sadly
The minge vase was already ringing very hollow before the election if one cared to listen.
I think the verb you’re looking for is “factsplaining” - which means “you’re just making me look bad by citing facts”
I'm pretty sure I'm not looking for such a non-word.
Is your heart really in advocating for these sort of nonsense links? They're not interesting are they?
Why not say “ok, I was wrong”
Go on. You can do it. Be a man
I'll happily say so when I am wrong. I am frequently wrong too. Quite what manliness has to do with such matters escapes me.
My ex wife was a primary school teacher in south london for a while. She started off as a Corbynite but I radicalised her by giving her Wild Swans to read. She ended up to the right of me
Anyway while she was teaching she encountered this “maths is racist” stuff and got in trouble for loudly opposing it. And was distressed thereby. So yes I have personally “rubbed up against this”
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
Which is all fair. Algebra and algorithms sound Arabic because they are
But the woke-Nazis went beyond that into denouncing maths itself as racist. “The idea of a correct answer is white supremacy” etc
Interestingly - for me - it’s when this maths::racist shit happened in the 2010s that I first really understood that wokeness was a threat. Not a fad. That it was coming for basic truths, and the enlightenment
I thought the only people 'coming for the Enlightenment' these days were all rather in friend Donald's orbit:
I think the verb you’re looking for is “factsplaining” - which means “you’re just making me look bad by citing facts”
I'm pretty sure I'm not looking for such a non-word.
Is your heart really in advocating for these sort of nonsense links? They're not interesting are they?
Why not say “ok, I was wrong”
Go on. You can do it. Be a man
I'll happily say so when I am wrong. I am frequently wrong too. Quite what manliness has to do with such matters escapes me.
My ex wife was a primary school teacher in south london for a while. She started off as a Corbynite but I radicalised her by giving her Wild Swans to read. She ended up to the right of me
Anyway while she was teaching she encountered this “maths is racist” stuff and got in trouble for loudly opposing it. And was distressed thereby. So yes I have personally “rubbed up against this”
There
This seems a reply to another post rather than mine. Be a man!
I haven't followed the indefinite leave to remain story closely, but am I right in thinking the allegation of racism stems from Reform saying that they wouldn't touch the post-Brexit deal for EU nationals? Kind of ironic if so.
There's also Tice's girlfriend effectively going back to the 1980s and saying John Barnes isn't British/English.
IN the world according to @Keir_Starmer if I grew up in, say, Somalia, I could credibly claim to be Somalian. Could I? Really? I think that would be laughable.
I remember meeting some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on how beautifully she spoke English. My wife is of Sri Lankan heritage (or "black as the ace of spades" as my granddad is alleged to have referred to her) but was born in Margate, and her English is a hell of a lot more beautiful than her Sinhala, judging by how tuk tuk drivers laugh at her efforts in Colombo. I suppose the people congratulating her on her English probably didn't consider themselves to have racist attitudes. My wife of course was gracious to them, as she was to my grandparents, who I think were rather fond of her.
But your wife was born in England, and I presume grew up here. John Barnes was born and lived in Jamaica until he was 12. I don't see why it would be racist to say your wife is more English than John Barnes.
If John Barnes had a brother twelve years younger than him, born in North London and never stepping foot in Jamaica, surely he would be slightly less Jamaican than his older brother?
I don't consider myself to be English so I'm not going to police the boundaries of Englishness!
This is where I would challenge Konstantin Kisin. Since by his own definition he doesn't consider himself English, why is it for him to define who is?
There is a broader point as to why people are looking for definition in ethnic identity. Alternatively you could posit some kind of cultural identity. My prediction is that Labour will fail to do this for Britain - and indeed England if they were to try it - because any attempt to define Britishness will be exclusive in some way. And they cannot bring themselves to exclude anyone.
Does anyone want to construct a British identity that is inclusive for those whose primary loyalty is to the global ummah?
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
Which is all fair. Algebra and algorithms sound Arabic because they are
But the woke-Nazis went beyond that into denouncing maths itself as racist. “The idea of a correct answer is white supremacy” etc
Interestingly - for me - it’s when this maths::racist shit happened in the 2010s that I first really understood that wokeness was a threat. Not a fad. That it was coming for basic truths, and the enlightenment
I really suggest you read those links because that's not what they're saying.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I don't know about anyone else but I expected a plan.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
Go on. Racist maths... No doubt you may be able to find a link, but I can't believe you've actually come up against such a thing.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past”
I have spent a significant chunk of time over the past few years discussing this in school.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
Which is all fair. Algebra and algorithms sound Arabic because they are
But the woke-Nazis went beyond that into denouncing maths itself as racist. “The idea of a correct answer is white supremacy” etc
Interestingly - for me - it’s when this maths::racist shit happened in the 2010s that I first really understood that wokeness was a threat. Not a fad. That it was coming for basic truths, and the enlightenment
I thought the only people 'coming for the Enlightenment' these days were all rather in friend Donald's orbit:
- Do you need to be white to be English? - Are you glad that gay people can get married? - Do you think man made global warming is a myth?
Simple yes or no answers. No evasion. No "it's not that simple..."
Think of it as akin to when every politician was hounded as to define a women. Keep asking until he gives a straight answer.
Need to pin his colours to a mast.
I think he'd handle all those questions very well.
If he answered "No" "Yes" and "No" do we think that would settle the matter(s)?
Of course not. It's a minimum criteria. Anything short of your stated answers mean he's definitely a racist / homophobe / conspiracy theorist, for the respective questions.
It doesn't exclude slightly more nuanced forms of the respective viewpoints.
This all depends on the word “racist” having any emotional weight any more. Given that it is hurled at literally everything from maths to gardening to half of Britain - or nearly all of it if Labour is doing the hurling - then I don’t think it has any moral impact. Not any more
I think the jury is out on whether Starmer has used the right strategy, and the next few polls should give an answer
I'm quite curious @Big_G_NorthWales - I think like me you are a disillusioned Tory. As such the idea of a Labour government is pretty grim. Worse still the ideas of the whole Labour movement. So it'd be reasonable to expect me (for example) to really think that Starmer was diabolical. And yet I don't. Operating within what's classed as thinking for the Labour movement I think he's doing quite well, and Reeves too. I find it quite baffling that the world and his wife seem to completely trash what is actually to my mind a relatively sensible government, given that government is operating under the burden of a daft starting position.
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
Not really
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
Thanks for the reply. Interesting that we differ so. Of course you're right in what you say, but I wonder what people expected of a Labour government in difficult times. The Blair years were underpinned by the fine economic picture inherited.
I don't know about anyone else but I expected a plan.
Unfortunately not. If I was somehow propelled to be in charge I'd have little idea (so an upgrade), but even then.. A smaller state is my long held political view. Am I uncomfortable with what that entails - yes.
Comments
The problem is the debate has gone well beyond "the boats" and is now about integration and the place of some groups within British society. We cannot have a country where whole groups live in fear simply because their ethnicity or lifestyle or religion isn't what is recognised as "British" or "English" or have a situation, as we did after October 2023 and at other times in the past, where segments of the population are under attack from other groups as a result of events elsewhere.
Nor can we in any way condone open calls for the large scale deportation of such groups. Farage's problem, it seems to me, is his relatively jocular avuncular style is increasingly at odds with some of his more radical and vocal supporters who will abandon him for more extreme solutions if he is seen to be equivocating on any of this. Farage is the one who has to run hard to keep his growing and disparate electoral coalition together.
“I understand the desire of white-collar politicos - be they spads, MPs, strategists, or journalists - to pretend that they are working class heroes. It’s a hackneyed enough theme of hundreds of British comedies and movies. Sometimes it’s quite endearing.
Right now, though, Labour’s strategists seem to be being pulled by the very strings of the puppets they think they are making dance. They have imagined a socially authoritarian working class Labour voter who really is long gone. And as they ventriloquize through their creation, they are following their fantasy’s grievances. The Andy Capp in their head has left containment and is making increasingly incessant demands.
All to avoid the shame of acknowledging the horrible, psychologically troubling truth. Labour has for a long time been a party of the PMC, by the PMC, for the PMC. It’s just, here’s the thing about the PMC. They are the electoral majority. And they are how Labour won, will win, and can only win.”
Thoughts?
Their stock market also seems to be struggling after a good run post Trump's election win.
I maintain that my meaning OUGHT to be the correct one. Because otherwise that is an interesting circumstance we have no pithy phrase for.
But I accept I am not right about the phrase. Though I should be.
The current Conservative conundrum reminds me of where the Liberal Democrats were in 2005-06. At that time, the party was wracked by one question - how do we respond to David Cameron? Cameron had come along, a nice guy in contrast to his immediate predecessors and had "love bombed" the party to the extent we were paralysed. With Kennedy a liability, the late and much lamented Sir Menzies Campbell not up to it, we decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose Nick Clegg, who on most levels wasn't ready to be leader but looked and sounded like David Cameron.
Indeed, the whole Orange Book phenomenon was the ideological convergence between the party and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which culminated in the Coalition. The problem was in both parties the convergence was shallow and didn't extend much beyond the leader and their immediate and respective coteries.
From the outside, the Conservative Party has no idea how to respond to Reform and Farage and it has paralysed them since, I'd argue, the middle of the GE campaign. It seems the party can either try the LD approach and be a pale imitation and end up in a few years even more marginalised than it is now or it can carve out a distinctive niche and I'd argue economic policy is or should be the key USP.
Going for sound economic management means admitting and accepting the catastrophic errors of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but simply arguing for lower taxes and large scale spending cuts doesn't cut the mustard in the 2020s in the way it did in the 1970s or earlier. The route to sound public finances doesn't lie over the corpses (metaphorically) of those dependent on public services.
Reform are desperately weak on economic policy and the experience of their elected County Councillors has shown their belief in a pot of gold at the end of the local Government rainbow (in terms of savings) was woefully misplaced. In a similar way, some of the more extravagant claims of potential savings from Yusuf and his ilk simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
Never thought of 'bred' in your sense, though. Partly because the word comes after 'born', ergo implies upbringing.
I know James O'Brexit isn't your thing, but have a look at the third hour on YouTube or Global Player. The Lady callers were in tears because they are abused by casual racists who tell them to "go home" despite them being third or fourth generation English. There were two or three of them explaining how intolerable life is today. They remember the abuse towards themselves and their parents in the 1970s and as the years went by the abuse was incrementally less marked than it was back in the day. And now it is back at 1970s levels and they blame the culture that Farage has propagated. No should have to live like that.
Badenoch has said nothing. I half expect her to call out Starmer for "calling" ( he didn't) Farage a racist.
The door is open to provide distinct policies and distance the party from Farage's disgraceful deportation ideas
The big question is will she take it?
If John Barnes had a brother twelve years younger than him, born in North London and never stepping foot in Jamaica, surely he would be slightly less Jamaican than his older brother?
When you add together “single” self expressed identity with those who express multiple backgrounds English is a much larger proportion.
Now with huge apologies to the native Americans, there is probably a distinction amongst the “first movers” or “white natives” in that the majority of the early immigrants, especially those with position, money and control to the US in the 13 colonies were English origin and its from the 13 colonies that the US effectively comes from.
So a lot of people who were “English” also were there for the revolution and so had strong reasons to identify not with the old country but with their new one they had spilt blood for.
Because these were the new incumbent masters of the new country they were less likely to hold onto the old country identity and then set themselves apart from “newcomers”.
Their financial and other structural advantages kept them separate from the incoming Irish and Italians and Germans to a large extent and so were more likely to be referred to as WASPs than English-Americans.
I have many friends and associates who are very much families that proudly trace themselves back to pre revolutionary times and coming over from England, and if you pushed them they would say they were English American but I think because they had a security in the early days and a confidence they didn’t hold onto some other crutch for tribal support etc.
The funny thing is that Biden for example has more English ancestry than Irish but to a lot of Americans there is infinitely more romance in claiming Irish ancestry and all that entails than to claim to be English American. Whilst being descended from the Mayflower settlers or Daughters of the revolution has cachet it doesn’t bring a tear to the eye like hearing Danny boy in a fake Irish bar crying over your imagined relatives all looking like Leo Di Caprio fleeing Ireland having lost the family potato to the evil Brits.
I despise his racism. At least Yaxley-Lennon spells his out.
The task is, as you say, to mark out a distinctive Conservative approach. The problem is she is hamstrung by the Party's record in Government of which she was not an insignificant part. I've yet to hear, apart from Rishi Sunak the day after the July 2024 election, anything approaching a mea culpa for what happened while the party was in Government.
I've argued a dedication to restoring the public finances might be a good start but the problem is social conservatives now have Reform leaving the Party with the liberal conservatives.
If all your party is going to be is a pale imitation of Reform, you are finished and you will end up sooner or later where the LDs were in 2015 and that's not a place you want to be.
One Nation Conservatism, however you define it, has successfully re-invented itself time and again and it may be overdue another iteration but is she the leader to deliver that and what does that look like for the 2030s and a rapidly changing world?
I am open minded, but if she fails to seize the moment than the conservative party will be in a very difficult place as will her future leadership
This is unacceptable, and why I will never vote for Farage and Reform and why I am hoping the conservatives can carve out a vastly different offering, because their responsibility is huge if the country is to avoid PM Farage
Armenian Americans are the most obsessed though.
But essentially there are two types of being English (or whatever).
The first is whether you can rightly call yourself a fully-fledged member of the society that is England. This isn't a really hard thing to do - if you go to the supermarket, chat about the weather with another random person. Perhaps more than that, but if you fit in then you're English.
The second is merely about history. If you're descended from a long line of people that have done the first type of Englishness then you have a little more to be English about.
The first type is the only one that matters, but its really quite nice to have the second type merely on a personal basis.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/modern-mathematics-confronts-its-white-patriarchal-past/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2025/09/30/fat-bear-week-2025-winner/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Bear_Week
(I hope PB will cover this annual election fully, beginning next year.)
I take that as shorthand for the person saying: "I'm a racist, but I don't like being told it!"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/08/racism-our-curriculums-isnt-limited-history-its-math-too/
Does that echo any of your thoughts?
98.8% of PB centrist dads are naive well-meaning idiots. At best
I have granddaughters whose mother is Thai and whose father (my son, mother English) Is English/British. They tend to describe themselves as Thai, and support Thai sport teams, although they speak better English than Thai, since they went to an English-language school in Bangkok.
I shall ask my elder granddaughter, now at an Australian university, how she now describes herself, when they come here for Christmas!
Better expectations management required too. On locals night as Northumberland came in the Tory talking heads were saying it was disappointing but Fridays results would be better. They lost Northumberland but remained largest party and run it as a minority. Fridays results were, of course, much much worse. They need to set pessimistic targets for May because whilst it will likely be rough it should be better than this year and they'll want to be 'pleasantly surprised at how well we held up in x, y and z on the wold'
Asha Rangappa
@asharangappa.bsky.social
I can’t believe I’m watching interviews of city mayors talking about how they are coordinating with other mayors to discuss how to protect their residents FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
I know we are “used to it” but it is absolutely insane
https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.social/post/3m23qz2keys2b
https://discoverulsterscots.com/emigration-influence/america/scotch-irish-america-timeline/leaders-nations
https://capx.co/how-i-almost-met-ronald-and-nancy-reagan-in-paisley-but-didnt
And, IMO, nothing doing until it is unequivocal that they are not Reformlite.
I think this remains true unless and until Reform collapse, after which all bets are off.
I just don't see how the blue states will tolerate this in the medium to long term.
Starmer and Reeves have been an unmitigated disaster with a job destroying budget, anti business regulations, and even now talking of spending billions more on things like axing the 2 child benefit and lots of spending promises this week
Add in free clothes, glasses, concert and football tickets plus Rayner tax evasion and the appalling decision to appoint Mandelson so they are now competing at Boris's sleeze levels
We are on the cusp of a serious debt crisis with bond rates higher than what Truss achieved all after a 40 billion tax raising budget last year and another 30 billion as a direct result of overspending and their inability to cut welfare
Imagine if when they were elected in July 2024 they told everyone they would increase taxes by 70 billion in the first 15 months what the outcry would be, and yet that is what they have done
I was in Sutton and it was the first election where the LDs won majority control instead of having to rely on the Mayor's casting vote and that began the journey to Paul Burstow and Tom Brake winning the Parliamentary seats in 1997.
London will be fascinating - IF the Conservatives can take a couple of Boroughs such as Barnet and Westminster off Labour early, they may be able to mask later losses to Reform in places like Bromley, Bexley and Havering.
I can do this all day. It’s fun
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/math-racist-university-illinois-professor/
At the moment, the debate is moving in the right direction with promises of action from all parties, but until the Labour Party policy is disclosed fully and its ramifications digested, it would be foolish of Reform to rescind their current stance.
Black intellectuals in the US like Glenn Lowry and John McWhorter have been among those most vehemently challenging it because they see the damage it is doing.
At some point the state governments will have to decide if they continue to let this happen or take steps to protect their people.
So, yes to compensate they will be looking at Westminster (pretty likely imo) and Barnet or perhaps Wandsworth. And holding on to Harrow (likely) and Hillingdon (maybe, probabky OK I think), oh and Kensington of course
The other interesting one might be Croydon.
If Reform are seen as more racist than they were, it could harm them a bit in London I suppose, where they weren't overwhelmingly popular anyway. That augers well for the Tories, if they get Boris to be their candidate.
Leon isn't wrong.
But also, it's not wrong to say that the way we teach maths tends to pretend that it was all developed by the Greeks and then the universities of Western Europe. We have a big map of maths on the wall in our corridor highlighting that e.g. zero is Indian, prime numbers might have been discovered in what is now the DRC well before anywhere else.
It's a valuable corrective to the otherwise easily formed impression that maths is a white man's game.
But I agree that to label maths as racist is foolish laziness.
Is your heart really in advocating for these sort of nonsense links? They're not interesting are they?
But the woke-Nazis went beyond that into denouncing maths itself as racist. “The idea of a correct answer is white supremacy” etc
Interestingly - for me - it’s when this maths::racist shit happened in the 2010s that I first really understood that wokeness was a threat. Not a fad. That it was coming for basic truths, and the enlightenment
- Do you need to be white to be English?
- Are you glad that gay people can get married?
- Do you think man made global warming is a myth?
Simple yes or no answers. No evasion. No "it's not that simple..."
Think of it as akin to when every politician was hounded as to define a women. Keep asking until he gives a straight answer.
Need to pin his colours to a mast.
I think Bromley is going to be fascinating - I suppose the key question is what will or might be the scale of any Reform vote and where will it be at its strongest?
Ditto Croydon - I can see both Labour and the Conservatives losing seats in both Boroughs but ask me again in six months and I might have a better idea.
Go on. You can do it. Be a man
But that's not saying that 'maths is racist". It's saying that racism (and other isms) can intrude into maths, as it can into many other fields. And when it does, it can be racist.
Look at the title of the sciam article; that agrees with the point you made, doesn't it? And even the byline: "Mathematicians want to think their field is a meritocracy, but bias, harassment and exclusion persist" should hardly be controversial.
On Bromley, the by election recently was quite interesting and informative. Bromley Common was a ward the New Statesman analysis suggests Labour took in July 2024 so not the heart of Tory strength but Reform took it in a tight race. Apply the swing there to the suggested ward result from July 24 and Bromley and Biggin Hill parliamentary seat would be an ultra marginal RefCon fight.
Apples and pears a bit I know but it all suggests B and B and Bromley council will be keenly contested. I guess Im expecting the Tory vote to be keener to turn out for a full borough election than a one off by election
Anyway while she was teaching she encountered this “maths is racist” stuff and got in trouble for loudly opposing it. And was distressed thereby. So yes I have personally “rubbed up against this”
There
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
There is a broader point as to why people are looking for definition in ethnic identity. Alternatively you could posit some kind of cultural identity. My prediction is that Labour will fail to do this for Britain - and indeed England if they were to try it - because any attempt to define Britishness will be exclusive in some way. And they cannot bring themselves to exclude anyone.
Does anyone want to construct a British identity that is inclusive for those whose primary loyalty is to the global ummah?
It doesn't exclude slightly more nuanced forms of the respective viewpoints.