I know. Brexit has induced hysteria in otherwise sensible people. An interesting UnHerd article today made this point very well. "Rather than assessing things rationally, and engaging with those who hold different points of view, people cling to comfort blankets, such as catastrophising, distancing and emotional reasoning." https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/
But isn't it quite possible that the average Remainer is a nicer person than the average Leaver, and so this survey captures a rational response not bias on the part of those nasty Remainers? Of course I may just be exhibiting this bias myself, but I would cite a couple of pieces of evidence that I think are supportive. First, compare and contrast the behaviour of protesters for the two sides at recent protests in London. Second, take a look at the constellation of views that correlate with support forLeave, eg on race, sexuality, the death penalty. Having said this I would probably put myself in the 70% as I am sure there must be one or two Leavers who are OK. I don't know any Leavers though so it's hard to say for certain.
That turns on whether one thinks being in agreement with you has any bearing on whether one is a nice person. That would be a bold assumption, IMHO.
I would agree generally but there are some issues where in my opinion there is a right answer, and the fact someone holds the other POV tells you something quite unpleasant about their character. Eg can someone believe that gay people are an abomination and be considered a nice person? Can someone believe that Britain is a white country and non-whites should be "repatriated" and be a nice person? The answer to both questions is no in my view, and I can't honestly imagine being friends with such a person. (Not incidentally, both hypothetical people would be much more likely to have voted Leave than Remain).
The Remain/Leave split in somewhere like inner Birmingham would suggest that plenty of Remain voters there would be of the view that homosexuality is an abomination. Some of them might have some interesting opinions on Jews and Christians, as well. Likewise, I doubt if Remain voters in Crossmaglen are noted for tolerance.
There are good and bad people on either side.
One of the remarkeable, yet unremarked, good things that happened yesterday was that the PM, leader of the DUP, and LOTO all attended a memorial service for an out Lesbian Catholic. Even Ulster is beginning to move with the times.
Window dressing, did you see their coupons, they were there under duress to show face. Fake people showing fake sympathy.
FPT--the idea that, after three years of Brexit, Scotland will vote to go through that all over again with independence (which would be all the issues of Brexit on steroids) seems for the birds to me. Desire for full membership of the EU is very unlikely to overrule all of those concerns, despite how passionately some might feel about it.
I beg to differ.
I have to agree with malcolmg here. Leaving the EU is going to cause such a mess of unexpected issues that rejoining is going to be very popular..
The only issue really is what happens to Northern Ireland as Scotland leaves..
There is great demand for an effective centrist party, IMO. Neither the LibDems nor Change UK are meeting it at the moment.
All we have with Change is a bunch of MPs with their noses out of joint for various reasons who are opposed to Brexit and are otherwise talking platitudes about 'the old politics'.
Umunna and Leslie are there primarily for career reasons. Couple of others are there because of antisemitism. Woollaston and Soubry are remainiacs. Heidi Allen seems to be one of those people who just feels she can run things using 'common sense'.
It needs some radical new ideas on the big issues. I'd like to see a book from a supportive intellectual heavyweight setting these out. I'd even like to skim read it. Then merge with the LibDems under a leader who can do some damage. Get the right person. Great if it's a woman but don't choose a woman just for the sake of it.
There is great demand for an effective centrist party, IMO. Neither the LibDems nor Change UK are meeting it at the moment.
All we have with Change is a bunch of MPs with their noses out of joint for various reasons who are opposed to Brexit and are otherwise talking platitudes about 'the old politics'.
Umunna and Leslie are there primarily for career reasons. Couple of others are there because of antisemitism. Woollaston and Soubry are remainiacs. Heidi Allen seems to be one of those people who just feels she can run things using 'common sense'.
It needs some radical new ideas on the big issues. I'd like to see a book from a supportive intellectual heavyweight setting these out. I'd even like to skim read it. Then merge with the LibDems under a leader who can do some damage. Get the right person. Great if it's a woman but don't choose a woman just for the sake of it.
Calling themselves ‘Change’ and pointing at the other parties and saying ‘old politics’ doesn’t mean that they aren’t a small group of establishment politicians breaking promises made at the last election and distancing themselves from ‘unfortunate tweets’. Same old same old or ‘SoSo’ would be a more fitting.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
But isn't it quite possible that the average Remainer is a nicer person than the average Leaver, and so this survey captures a rational response not bias on the part of those nasty Remainers? Of course I may just be exhibiting this bias myself, but I would cite a couple of pieces of evidence that I think are supportive. First, compare and contrast the behaviour of protesters for the two sides at recent protests in London. Second, take a look at the constellation of views that correlate with support forLeave, eg on race, sexuality, the death penalty. Having said this I would probably put myself in the 70% as I am sure there must be one or two Leavers who are OK. I don't know any Leavers though so it's hard to say for certain.
That turns on whether one thinks being in agreement with you has any bearing on whether one is a nice person. That would be a bold assumption, IMHO.
I would agree generally but there are some issues where in my opinion there is a right answer, and the fact someone holds the other POV tells you something quite unpleasant about their character. Eg can someone believe that gay people are an abomination and be considered a nice person? Can someone believe that Britain is a white country and non-whites should be "repatriated" and be a nice person? The answer to both questions is no in my view, and I can't honestly imagine being friends with such a person. (Not incidentally, both hypothetical people would be much more likely to have voted Leave than Remain).
The Remain/Leave split in somewhere like inner Birmingham would suggest that plenty of Remain voters there would be of the view that homosexuality is an abomination. Some of them might have some interesting opinions on Jews and Christians, as well. Likewise, I doubt if Remain voters in Crossmaglen are noted for tolerance.
There are good and bad people on either side.
One of the remarkeable, yet unremarked, good things that happened yesterday was that the PM, leader of the DUP, and LOTO all attended a memorial service for an out Lesbian Catholic. Even Ulster is beginning to move with the times.
Window dressing, did you see their coupons, they were there under duress to show face. Fake people showing fake sympathy.
I have to agree May only announced going when she heard Irish president and PM going. Not sure about Corbyn. I suppose it was hard for the DUP to go into a Roman Catholic Church! Screwed that up don’t understand blockquote and what to do when the thread is too long
Disgusting. This thieving trougher deserves serious prison time, she embezzled money meant for food banks.
A former SNP MP has admitted embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations.
Natalie McGarry, 37, faced three charges of embezzlement and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone they had seized.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East but did not seek re-election in 2017, admitted two of the charges when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to the other two.
She embezzled £21,000 from Women for Independence in her role as treasurer of the organisation.
She transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.
Just one bit of advice, void your bladders beforehand, with trailers it is over three and a half hours long and far too many people had to take comfort breaks, and you don’t want to miss a single second.
Just one bit of advice, void your bladders beforehand, with trailers it is over three and a half hours long and far too many people had to take comfort breaks, and you don’t want to miss a single second.
I'm going this evening, will deffo take your advice.
Just one bit of advice, void your bladders beforehand, with trailers it is over three and a half hours long and far too many people had to take comfort breaks, and you don’t want to miss a single second.
I'm going this evening, will deffo take your advice.
I’ve seen it twice and am about to watch it for the third time, it gets better every time.
So we could have two disgraced national security risks in the cabinet?
You'd have to hope and presume that their is a senior staff officer in the MoD whose sole duty is to draw his sidearm and shoot the Fireplace Salesman in the event that we find ourselves in a war.
Dave was right, inter alia, about Twitter, Kippers, and Brexit.
We didn’t deserve him.
Nope - we are now suffering because of his attempt to use referendums to fix internal party politics, appalling campaigning and austerity that means parts of the country are poorer than Latvia and Bulgaria...
Disgusting. This thieving trougher deserves serious prison time, she embezzled money meant for food banks.
A former SNP MP has admitted embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations.
Natalie McGarry, 37, faced three charges of embezzlement and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone they had seized.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East but did not seek re-election in 2017, admitted two of the charges when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to the other two.
She embezzled £21,000 from Women for Independence in her role as treasurer of the organisation.
She transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.
No. The man who punched her is to blame.
Was the puncher a Leaver or a Remainer? @OnlyLivingBoy would I presume price Leaver at around 1/10?
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
The dilemma is real, and well illustrated by Andrew Moffat and the 'No Outsiders' programme he has developed, with the best of intentions, precipitating significant protests. It is a fact that this programme makes 'Outsiders' of those who for whatever reason oppose all same sex sexual relationships, and are prepared loudly to say so.
I know. Brexit has induced hysteria in otherwise sensible people. An interesting UnHerd article today made this point very well. "Rather than assessing things rationally, and engaging with those who hold different points of view, people cling to comfort blankets, such as catastrophising, distancing and emotional reasoning." https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/
Top trolling, unless you're serious. I don't think there's much correlation myself, except that Remain is more urban and middle-class, which one may like or not according to personal preference.
I am serious, sorry. The point I am making is that people may feel like they don't want to be friends with some of the kind of people who voted leave, and I can sympathise with that. Look at the big pro-Remain march in London, which was totally peaceful and good humoured, would there be any objective reason not to be friends with any of those people? Contrast with some of the people protesting for Leave, and the way they have harassed MPs. A Leaver killed an MP. There have been multiple death threats. Would you want these people as your friend? Is it not revealing that the violence and threats have all been on one side? Personally I wouldn't be friends with homophobes and racists, for instance, and while not all Leavers are homophobes and racists most homophobes and racists are Leavers. If this makes me urban and middle class then sorry, I am too busy eating my avocado toast to give a fuck.
Nick, why are you struggling with the logic of OLB statement. Surely it is logical. Although the vast majority of Leavers will be decent people, because they want to leave the EU that will attract the vocal nasty extreme right wingers, which then gives an unfair perception. It is what happens. It is not the fault of the Leavers, but that nasty minority tarnishes the less vocal majority.
Dave was right, inter alia, about Twitter, Kippers, and Brexit.
We didn’t deserve him.
Nope - we are now suffering because of his attempt to use referendums to fix internal party politics, appalling campaigning and austerity that means parts of the country are poorer than Latvia and Bulgaria...
Except, quite obviously, the idea that EU membership was a non-issue that politicians could just keep ignoring is patent nonsense.
And austerity has naff all to do with why some parts of the country are poor, they were poor before the recession.
FPT from Axiomatic last thread (I'd said that people should admit their past views without apology, and either regret them, defend them or simply calmly explain they'd moved on, giving my Communist past as an example)::
--------
Bravely said, but imagine if your past was not communist, but Catholic, and you had therefore expressed mainstream 20th century Catholic views on homosexuality? That they are sinners destined to burn in hell? That wouldn't look so good now and you might have to resign, it's a lottery, essentially ---------
I think that's another good example (and interesting that being a former orthodox Catholic is seen as more embarrassing than being a former Communist). I think that in that case opinion has moved so far that "defend it" is not a viable option, but I'd probably be OK with an MP who said they used to think that as a regular churchgoer but they've realised it was quite wrong.
But you do need to decide what your view is and stick up for it. Tim Farron's public agonising over whether being gay was a sin just exasperated everyone. As he now recognises, it'd have been less bad to say "I know most of my colleagues think it's odd, but my religious belief tells me this and I'm very committed to my religion." I think that would have led to his removal as LD leader but he'd have retained more respect.
The reason people get into difficulties over this is because we are unwilling to allow space for both religious and non-religious views. A sin is a theological construct, irrelevant and meaningless to any non-religious person. Though the number of such people who opine on what religions should or should not believe from the outside is quite surprisingly high.
Determining what is or is not a sin should be irrelevant as far as law-making goes, as we are not a theocracy. So the fact that a religious person may believe that in religious terms some behaviour eg adultery is a sin should be irrelevant provided that they are not proposing to base their political actions on such a view.
It should be perfectly possible for a practising Christian politician to say that as a matter of religious belief he believes in the Ten Commandments. But that as a politician he should be judged on his policies not on his personal religious beliefs. I don’t know why Farron didn’t say as much. Possibly because he may have felt that those pursuing him would not have understood or would have refused to understand the distinction.Otherwise we are getting dangerously close to a situation whereby no-one who does not believe today’s acceptable received views can ever enter public life.
In short believe what you want in your church, synagogue, mosque. But if you then start acting on that belief in a way which harms others: no.
Even Change is crap. Change to what? Why? For whom? Most people, not just Gaffer Gamgee, actually don't like change. If you're going to advocate change you need to be very clear and decisive what you're offering them to change to. Offering a message of malcontent isn't enough if you're hoping for power. You'll remain fringe.
Has it also not occurred to anyone that Change and Remain are diametric opposites?
Change has been consistently shown by focus groups to be a vote-winning slogan. It was Obama's slogan. Of course you are right that it seems quite vapid, but people are apt to fall for marketing campaigns. We'll see if this one has any legs.
Why didn't they just stick with TIG? Easy to remember with the TIGer / TIGger thing. Independence from the big parties is a good selling point too.
Offering Change when all your representatives are long serving members of the main parties seems bizarre.
Even Change is crap. Change to what? Why? For whom? Most people, not just Gaffer Gamgee, actually don't like change. If you're going to advocate change you need to be very clear and decisive what you're offering them to change to. Offering a message of malcontent isn't enough if you're hoping for power. You'll remain fringe.
Has it also not occurred to anyone that Change and Remain are diametric opposites?
Change has been consistently shown by focus groups to be a vote-winning slogan. It was Obama's slogan. Of course you are right that it seems quite vapid, but people are apt to fall for marketing campaigns. We'll see if this one has any legs.
Why didn't they just stick with TIG? Easy to remember with the TIGer / TIGger thing. Independence from the big parties is a good selling point too.
Offering Change when all your representatives are long serving members of the main parties seems bizarre.
They couldn't register as TIG for the Euros, it's too generic.
I know. Brexit has induced hysteria in otherwise sensible people. An interesting UnHerd article today made this point very well. "Rather than assessing things rationally, and engaging with those who hold different points of view, people cling to comfort blankets, such as catastrophising, distancing and emotional reasoning." https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/
Top trolling, unless you're serious. I don't think there's much correlation myself, except that Remain is more urban and middle-class, which one may like or not according to personal preference.
I am serious, sorry. The point I am making is that people may feel like they don't want to be friends with some of the kind of people who voted leave, and I can sympathise with that. Look at the big pro-Remain march in London, which was totally peaceful and good humoured, would there be any objective reason not to be friends with any of those people? Contrast with some of the people protesting for Leave, and the way they have harassed MPs. A Leaver killed an MP. There have been multiple death threats. Would you want these people as your friend? Is it not revealing that the violence and threats have all been on one side? Personally I wouldn't be friends with homophobes and racists, for instance, and while not all Leavers are homophobes and racists most homophobes and racists are Leavers. If this makes me urban and middle class then sorry, I am too busy eating my avocado toast to give a fuck.
Nick, why are you struggling with the logic of OLB statement. Surely it is logical. Although the vast majority of Leavers will be decent people, because they want to leave the EU that will attract the vocal nasty extreme right wingers, which then gives an unfair perception. It is what happens. It is not the fault of the Leavers, but that nasty minority tarnishes the less vocal majority.
'One of the remarkeable, yet unremarked, good things that happened yesterday was that the PM, leader of the DUP, and LOTO all attended a memorial service for an out Lesbian Catholic. Even Ulster is beginning to move with the times.'
The service was an inspiration as the priest put all the politicians on the naughty step with the congregation rising as one in unity applauding the priest demands the politicians used the tragic death of this young journalist as a catalyst for good.
It took some moments for the politicians to rise to join the applause and their embarrassment was there on full display
It struck me that the media should put that moment in time on repeat every hour on the hour to knock sense into all our idiotic warring politicians
There have been incidents like this before. Remember the peace women and their Nobel Peace Prize. It led to nothing. Or the women who campaigned against the IRA over the murder of their brother - hailed as heroines by one and all in public - but never got their brother’s killer brought to justice.
The measure of real change within the local community will be whether someone dobs in the killer of Lyra McKee and is willing to give evidence against them. The rest is all words, fine, inspiring words but still just words.
Disgusting. This thieving trougher deserves serious prison time, she embezzled money meant for food banks.
A former SNP MP has admitted embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations.
Natalie McGarry, 37, faced three charges of embezzlement and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone they had seized.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East but did not seek re-election in 2017, admitted two of the charges when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to the other two.
She embezzled £21,000 from Women for Independence in her role as treasurer of the organisation.
She transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.
No. The man who punched her is to blame.
Was the puncher a Leaver or a Remainer? @OnlyLivingBoy would I presume price Leaver at around 1/10?
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
I know. Brexit has induced hysteria in otherwise sensible people. An interesting UnHerd article today made this point very well. "Rather than assessing things rationally, and engaging with those who hold different points of view, people cling to comfort blankets, such as catastrophising, distancing and emotional reasoning." https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/
Top trolling, unless you're serious. I don't think there's much correlation myself, except that Remain is more urban and middle-class, which one may like or not according to personal preference.
I am serious, sorry. The point I am making is that people may feel like they don't want to be friends with some of the kind of people who voted leave, and I can sympathise with that. Look at the big pro-Remain march in London, which was totally peaceful and good humoured, would there be any objective reason not to be friends with any of those people? Contrast with some of the people protesting for Leave, and the way they have harassed MPs. A Leaver killed an MP. There have been multiple death threats. Would you want these people as your friend? Is it not revealing that the violence and threats have all been on one side? Personally I wouldn't be friends with homophobes and racists, for instance, and while not all Leavers are homophobes and racists most homophobes and racists are Leavers. If this makes me urban and middle class then sorry, I am too busy eating my avocado toast to give a fuck.
Nick, why are you struggling with the logic of OLB statement. Surely it is logical. Although the vast majority of Leavers will be decent people, because they want to leave the EU that will attract the vocal nasty extreme right wingers, which then gives an unfair perception. It is what happens. It is not the fault of the Leavers, but that nasty minority tarnishes the less vocal majority.
It's logical enough if you believe that you are righteous, and those who disagree with you are evil.
I assume that you are just trying to wind me up there Sean? Remainers aren't necessarily righteous, Leavers aren't evil. However the extreme right associate themselves with Leave and have a disproportionate impact because of their behaviour. A few bad apples and all that.
FPT--the idea that, after three years of Brexit, Scotland will vote to go through that all over again with independence (which would be all the issues of Brexit on steroids) seems for the birds to me. Desire for full membership of the EU is very unlikely to overrule all of those concerns, despite how passionately some might feel about it.
I beg to differ.
I have to agree with malcolmg here. Leaving the EU is going to cause such a mess of unexpected issues that rejoining is going to be very popular..
The only issue really is what happens to Northern Ireland as Scotland leaves..
It’s a given that if Scotland goes, NI goes. The clue is in the name “Ulster Scots”. There is no connection between NI and England, it’s always been with Scotland. Maybe some ultras might try to fight for a repartitioning with the NE corner becoming part of Scotland but the Scots won’t be having any of that.
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.
No. The man who punched her is to blame.
Was the puncher a Leaver or a Remainer? @OnlyLivingBoy would I presume price Leaver at around 1/10?
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
On a related topic, have Widdecombe and Unity Rees-Mogg been expelled from the Conservative party or did they resign some time ago, do we know?
Adonis may be standing in the south-west but Labour are clearly panic-stricken about something for his Lordship to be willing to destroy the past three years of unremitting fury against Brexit and Brexit voters...
Canvassing returns in Labour seats in the Midlands and the north (all those places people like Roger thinks contains the dregs of society) would be my guess...
On a related topic, have Widdecombe and Unity Rees-Mogg been expelled from the Conservative party or did they resign some time ago, do we know?
Adonis may be standing in the south-west but Labour are clearly panic-stricken about something for his Lordship to be willing to destroy the past three years of unremitting fury against Brexit and Brexit voters...
Canvassing returns in Labour seats in the Midlands and the north (all those places people like Roger thinks contains the dregs of society) would be my guess...
I guess we'd need to hear from someone actually canvassing in those areas.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
'One of the remarkeable, yet unremarked, good things that happened yesterday was that the PM, leader of the DUP, and LOTO all attended a memorial service for an out Lesbian Catholic. Even Ulster is beginning to move with the times.'
The service was an inspiration as the priest put all the politicians on the naughty step with the congregation rising as one in unity applauding the priest demands the politicians used the tragic death of this young journalist as a catalyst for good.
It took some moments for the politicians to rise to join the applause and their embarrassment was there on full display
It struck me that the media should put that moment in time on repeat every hour on the hour to knock sense into all our idiotic warring politicians
There have been incidents like this before. Remember the peace women and their Nobel Peace Prize. It led to nothing. Or the women who campaigned against the IRA over the murder of their brother - hailed as heroines by one and all in public - but never got their brother’s killer brought to justice.
The measure of real change within the local community will be whether someone dobs in the killer of Lyra McKee and is willing to give evidence against them. The rest is all words, fine, inspiring words but still just words.
Yes, we've been there and done that. ever since 1969.
People will beat their breasts over the murder of Lyra McKee, and 12 months from now, no one outside of her family will remember who she was.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
The dilemma is real, and well illustrated by Andrew Moffat and the 'No Outsiders' programme he has developed, with the best of intentions, precipitating significant protests. It is a fact that this programme makes 'Outsiders' of those who for whatever reason oppose all same sex sexual relationships, and are prepared loudly to say so.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
I know. Brexit has induced hysteria in otherwise sensible people. An interesting UnHerd article today made this point very well. "Rather than assessing things rationally, and engaging with those who hold different points of view, people cling to comfort blankets, such as catastrophising, distancing and emotional reasoning." https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/
Top trolling, unless you're serious. I don't think there's much correlation myself, except that Remain is more urban and middle-class, which one may like or not according to personal preference.
I am serious, sorry. The point I am making is that people may feel like they don't want to be friends with some of the kind of people who voted leave, and I can sympathise with that. Look at the big pro-Remain march in London, which was totally peaceful and good humoured, would there be any objective reason not to be friends with any of those people? Contrast with some of the people protesting for Leave, and the way they have harassed MPs. A Leaver killed an MP. There have been multiple death threats. Would you want these people as your friend? Is it not revealing that the violence and threats have all been on one side? Personally I wouldn't be friends with homophobes and racists, for instance, and while not all Leavers are homophobes and racists most homophobes and racists are Leavers. If this makes me urban and middle class then sorry, I am too busy eating my avocado toast to give a fuck.
Nick, why are you struggling with the logic of OLB statement. Surely it is logical. Although the vast majority of Leavers will be decent people, because they want to leave the EU that will attract the vocal nasty extreme right wingers, which then gives an unfair perception. It is what happens. It is not the fault of the Leavers, but that nasty minority tarnishes the less vocal majority.
I don't know. Maybe too soon. I'm not trying to say remainers are all good and leavers are all evil because that isn't true, but there are perceptions and these perceptions are created by a minority. It is pointless denying the perception is there, even if unfounded. Just look at those who camp outside Parliament. On both sides it is an extreme minority. The remainer extremes come over as eccentric, the leaver extremes come over as nasty.
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.
No. The man who punched her is to blame.
Was the puncher a Leaver or a Remainer? @OnlyLivingBoy would I presume price Leaver at around 1/10?
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
She may be a Leaver but it wouldn't surprise me if an even more leavery Leaver was the assailant.
PS @TrèsDifficile given the evidence you provided how is it hard to tell whether she is pro-Brexit?
You could well be right!
Her Leave EU (who she doesn't follow) retweet was mocking Labour, not supporting Brexit. Her Jenkin retweet was pro-music, not pro-Brexit. The Jenkin one was the only mention of Brexit in her last 3 years of tweets.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Because foxes love being chased for miles and then being torn apart by a pack of dogs? Seems unlikely although I have not read this report and am generally in favour of listening to experts, if indeed that is what Mr or Mrs Burns is.
you can't underestimate there's a lot of angry people out there on all sides. That is not good, and all parties have blame for this.
No. The man who punched her is to blame.
Was the puncher a Leaver or a Remainer? @OnlyLivingBoy would I presume price Leaver at around 1/10?
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
She may be a Leaver but it wouldn't surprise me if an even more leavery Leaver was the assailant.
PS @TrèsDifficile given the evidence you provided how is it hard to tell whether she is pro-Brexit?
You could well be right!
Her Leave EU (who she doesn't follow) retweet was mocking Labour, not supporting Brexit. Her Jenkin retweet was pro-music, not pro-Brexit. The Jenkin one was the only mention of Brexit in her last 3 years of tweets.
Ok fair enough - top marks for your detailed research!
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Because foxes love being chased for miles and then being torn apart by a pack of dogs? Seems unlikely although I have not read this report and am generally in favour of listening to experts, if indeed that is what Mr or Mrs Burns is.
I know for a fact that foxes much prefer being caught in traps and gnawing their own limbs off to escape.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Has the author of that report ever been ripped apart by a pack of dogs? I think the slaughtered foxes are the best judges of what amounts to cruelty.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
They are far from obvious, you are just being intolerant and saying your views are 'more profound' than those you disagree with. After all, the two examples I gave represent what would have been the mainstream views of most people in the UK 30 years ago, and would still be the mainstream views in many societies today.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
My theory is Roses are slightly over-estimated, Broccoli slightly under.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
My theory is Roses are slightly over-estimated, Broccoli slightly under.
I think the bigger question for broccoli is not how many people prefer it, but where those people are. Although the Spanish system is not full FPTP it can still make quite a big difference.
I don't know. Maybe too soon. I'm not trying to say remainers are all good and leavers are all evil because that isn't true, but there are perceptions and these perceptions are created by a minority. It is pointless denying the perception is there, even if unfounded. Just look at those who camp outside Parliament. On both sides it is an extreme minority. The remainer extremes come over as eccentric, the leaver extremes come over as nasty.
Been down to College Green a few times (I am strangely addicted to it) and I am sorry to report that the Leave protesters are indeed a Basket of Deplorables.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Can you show me where in the Burns report that conclusion is stated?
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
Has the author of that report ever been ripped apart by a pack of dogs? I think the slaughtered foxes are the best judges of what amounts to cruelty.
Ask a lamb or pregnant sheep or hen savaged by a fox what they think of foxes, if we’re going to get into asking animals what they think.
The Burn report concluded that foxes were pests and needed to be culled and that many of the other ways of culling them were equally if not crueller than fox-hunting.
But the argument on this has been done. It’s not going to be brought back, foxes are still culled and trail hunting is still going on. There are more important issues in the countryside for politicians to address, if they can be bothered.
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
The exhaustive Burns Report concluded that fox hunting was not cruel.
According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect. It states that the Burns Committee did not seek to address the ethical aspect of hunting with dogs. Burns stated that there was insufficient "verifiable evidence or data to safely reach views about cruelty" . In other words, he said they could not say it was cruel, not that he could say it wasn't cruel (not proven, rather than innocent). The report did state that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
How far tolerant societies should tolerate the threat from the intolerant is one of the most pressing questions of our times. Only up to a point is I think the honest answer, and indeed the revealed preference of these societies. Where that point is depends on your tolerance to the threat and that in part depends on whether the threat is to you and your loved ones directly. "if you tolerate this, your children will be next" turned out to be prophetic, after all.
So you are saying, to take a couple of counter examples, someone to whom fox-hunting is a crucial part of their way of life (and there are many such people), or someone who holds deeply-held religious views which mean they disapprove of schools teaching their children about LBGT rights, should not be tolerant of the threat to their way of life from the intolerance of metropolitan liberals?
Being concrete always helps. Examples of the kind of intolerant threats I am talking about are Islamist terrorism and the far right. These are people who are intolerant of other people's right to exist or to live their life in a way that involves no meaningful harm to others. It should be obvious that fox hunting involves an unacceptable level of cruelty towards animals - who while not perhaps deserving of all the same rights as humans deserve at least the right to not to experience pain simply so people can enjoy it. The right to bring your children up as you see fit is a strong one, but surely the right of gay people not to be subject to profound discrimination is stronger? Including of course the children involved, some of whom will be gay. Bring liberal doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they like whenever and wherever the fancy takes them. When rights collide, then the more profound right should dominate; this must involve a value judgement but in my view most cases are relatively obvious, as I think your two examples are.
They are far from obvious, you are just being intolerant and saying your views are 'more profound' than those you disagree with. After all, the two examples I gave represent what would have been the mainstream views of most people in the UK 30 years ago, and would still be the mainstream views in many societies today.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
The foxes are irrelevant. It's the people who hunt them who are the targets.
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
The Labour Party have few Leave voters compared to the Tories so will probably do okay . They will stay on the fence re another vote with the same all options on the table waffle .
Euro poll from France (Ifop-Fiducial for Paris Match)
République en marche (Macron) 22% Rassemblement national (LePen) 20.5% Les Républicains (UMP) 15% France insoumise (Melenchon) 9% Greens 8.5% Socialists 6% Debout la France (Gaullists) 4.5% Génération.s (ex Socialists led by Hamon) 3% Les Patriotes ( Philippot) 2.5%% Communists 2% UDI 1.5% Lutte ouvrière 1%
They have changed the electoral system this year. National lists (rather than regional) with a 5% threshold to get seats.
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
The Labour Party have few Leave voters compared to the Tories so will probably do okay . They will stay on the fence re another vote with the same all options on the table waffle .
Yet Lord Adonis is on his knees literally begging Labour leave voters (who he'd originally told to **** off) to keep voting Labour...
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
Chuka was on Newnight the other night and agreed with the premise that the EU elections are kind of a proxy referendum...
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
The Labour Party have few Leave voters compared to the Tories so will probably do okay . They will stay on the fence re another vote with the same all options on the table waffle .
Yet Lord Adonis is on his knees literally begging Labour leave voters to keep voting Labour...
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
IMO the route to Ref2 is the election of a Labour government.
If we get an election before Brexit I think Labour will offer that and will win.
This seems to me to be wishful thinking. As far as I can see, Labour have nowhere stated that they will offer a second referendum, with Remain as one of the options. They did not do so in 2017, they have not done so at any point since.
They would like people to believe that they might, with all sorts of weasel wording floated about. But they have not been clear. I may be wrong but far too many people are choosing to believe what they would like to be true.
Latest poll from Spain, the Roses are on 26.2 (-1.2 on two days ago), Aubergines on 13.5 (+1.1), Oranges 15.1 (+0.7), Water 19.9 (n/c), Broccoli 12.4 (-0.1). Slight reversion to last time as polling day approaches.
Labours policy for the EU elections will be the same fudge that’s happened for the last year .
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
IMO the route to Ref2 is the election of a Labour government.
If we get an election before Brexit I think Labour will offer that and will win.
The problem is I can’t see an election before Brexit happens . The Tories aren’t going to vote for one whilst their poll numbers are in the toilet . Even with a new leader coming in on a hard Brexit offer the Brexit Party will say you can’t trust the Tories to deliver and that will cost them loads of votes .
Comments
The only issue really is what happens to Northern Ireland as Scotland leaves..
Umunna and Leslie are there primarily for career reasons. Couple of others are there because of antisemitism. Woollaston and Soubry are remainiacs. Heidi Allen seems to be one of those people who just feels she can run things using 'common sense'.
It needs some radical new ideas on the big issues. I'd like to see a book from a supportive intellectual heavyweight setting these out. I'd even like to skim read it. Then merge with the LibDems under a leader who can do some damage. Get the right person. Great if it's a woman but don't choose a woman just for the sake of it.
But isn't it quite possible that the average Remainer is a nicer person than the average Leaver, and so this survey captures a rational response not bias on the part of those nasty Remainers? Of course I may just be exhibiting this bias myself, but I would cite a couple of pieces of evidence that I think are supportive. First, compare and contrast the behaviour of protesters for the two sides at recent protests in London. Second, take a look at the constellation of views that correlate with support forLeave, eg on race, sexuality, the death penalty.
Having said this I would probably put myself in the 70% as I am sure there must be one or two Leavers who are OK. I don't know any Leavers though so it's hard to say for certain.
That turns on whether one thinks being in agreement with you has any bearing on whether one is a nice person. That would be a bold assumption, IMHO.
I would agree generally but there are some issues where in my opinion there is a right answer, and the fact someone holds the other POV tells you something quite unpleasant about their character. Eg can someone believe that gay people are an abomination and be considered a nice person? Can someone believe that Britain is a white country and non-whites should be "repatriated" and be a nice person? The answer to both questions is no in my view, and I can't honestly imagine being friends with such a person. (Not incidentally, both hypothetical people would be much more likely to have voted Leave than Remain).
The Remain/Leave split in somewhere like inner Birmingham would suggest that plenty of Remain voters there would be of the view that homosexuality is an abomination. Some of them might have some interesting opinions on Jews and Christians, as well. Likewise, I doubt if Remain voters in Crossmaglen are noted for tolerance.
There are good and bad people on either side.
One of the remarkeable, yet unremarked, good things that happened yesterday was that the PM, leader of the DUP, and LOTO all attended a memorial service for an out Lesbian Catholic. Even Ulster is beginning to move with the times.
Window dressing, did you see their coupons, they were there under duress to show face. Fake people showing fake sympathy.
I have to agree May only announced going when she heard Irish president and PM going. Not sure about Corbyn. I suppose it was hard for the
DUP to go into a Roman Catholic Church! Screwed that up don’t understand blockquote and what to do when the thread is too long
A former SNP MP has admitted embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations.
Natalie McGarry, 37, faced three charges of embezzlement and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone they had seized.
McGarry, who represented Glasgow East but did not seek re-election in 2017, admitted two of the charges when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to the other two.
She embezzled £21,000 from Women for Independence in her role as treasurer of the organisation.
She transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1437263-natalie-mcgarry-admits-embezzlement-charges/
No spoilers.
Just one bit of advice, void your bladders beforehand, with trailers it is over three and a half hours long and far too many people had to take comfort breaks, and you don’t want to miss a single second.
Stupid Boy
So we could have two disgraced national security risks in the cabinet?
We didn’t deserve him.
https://twitter.com/notDcfcBoss/status/1121313764400402433
https://tinyurl.com/y5cnphxv
'Oh no he isn't!'
'Oh yes he is!'
etc
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/joe-biden-announces-2020-us-presidential-bid_uk_5cc05f95e4b01b6b3efb1d61
Hard to tell whether Mrs Hales herself is pro or anti Brexit from her twitter (she's pro-music and anti-religion by the looks of things), but she did retweet this
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/877560911925358592
and this
https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/915462718425092096
Labour's canvassing returns but be REALLY bad in their heartlands for Adonis to agree to do this...
And austerity has naff all to do with why some parts of the country are poor, they were poor before the recession.
Determining what is or is not a sin should be irrelevant as far as law-making goes, as we are not a theocracy. So the fact that a religious person may believe that in religious terms some behaviour eg adultery is a sin should be irrelevant provided that they are not proposing to base their political actions on such a view.
It should be perfectly possible for a practising Christian politician to say that as a matter of religious belief he believes in the Ten Commandments. But that as a politician he should be judged on his policies not on his personal religious beliefs. I don’t know why Farron didn’t say as much. Possibly because he may have felt that those pursuing him would not have understood or would have refused to understand the distinction.Otherwise we are getting dangerously close to a situation whereby no-one who does not believe today’s acceptable received views can ever enter public life.
In short believe what you want in your church, synagogue, mosque. But if you then start acting on that belief in a way which harms others: no.
Offering Change when all your representatives are long serving members of the main parties seems bizarre.
Should have thought about that from the start....
It cannot be a surprise that Labour want their candidates to be unambiguously encouraging people to vote Labour...
... The surprise is that the same does not seem to apply to the Conservatives:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/21/tories-plan-vote-brexit-party-eu-elections-surveys-nigel-farage
On a related topic, have Widdecombe and Unity Rees-Mogg been expelled from the Conservative party or did they resign some time ago, do we know?
Why does this not tarnish all remainers?
The measure of real change within the local community will be whether someone dobs in the killer of Lyra McKee and is willing to give evidence against them. The rest is all words, fine, inspiring words but still just words.
PS @TrèsDifficile given the evidence you provided how is it hard to tell whether she is pro-Brexit?
(Can't spell too either....)
Canvassing returns in Labour seats in the Midlands and the north (all those places people like Roger thinks contains the dregs of society) would be my guess...
Will there be any canvassing for the Euros yet?
Are the main parties planning to publish manifestos for the Euro elections? If so, when?
'It's got your name on it pal.'
People will beat their breasts over the murder of Lyra McKee, and 12 months from now, no one outside of her family will remember who she was.
Her Leave EU (who she doesn't follow) retweet was mocking Labour, not supporting Brexit. Her Jenkin retweet was pro-music, not pro-Brexit. The Jenkin one was the only mention of Brexit in her last 3 years of tweets.
Labour's will be more interesting... Confirmatory Vote yes or no?
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1121364436546195457
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
Unless there’s a change of government then there’s no chance of another EU vote . You can’t just miraculously make another vote appear .
Another vote is very unlikely , there are very few EU nations left that want the UK to stay now anyway.
I say this as a staunch Remainer but really the UK has become a big problem now for the EU.
Just can’t see how another vote happens when you have the executive against it , and there’s no majority in the Commons for it anyway .
Am I missing something ?
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080727002638/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf
The Burn report concluded that foxes were pests and needed to be culled and that many of the other ways of culling them were equally if not crueller than fox-hunting.
But the argument on this has been done. It’s not going to be brought back, foxes are still culled and trail hunting is still going on. There are more important issues in the countryside for politicians to address, if they can be bothered.
So if the Tories are devoured by the Brexit Party in the shires and Labour are devoured by the Brexit Party in the north I assume we'll hear no more about referendums and CHUK will disband?
République en marche (Macron) 22%
Rassemblement national (LePen) 20.5%
Les Républicains (UMP) 15%
France insoumise (Melenchon) 9%
Greens 8.5%
Socialists 6%
Debout la France (Gaullists) 4.5%
Génération.s (ex Socialists led by Hamon) 3%
Les Patriotes ( Philippot) 2.5%%
Communists 2%
UDI 1.5%
Lutte ouvrière 1%
They have changed the electoral system this year. National lists (rather than regional) with a 5% threshold to get seats.
If we get an election before Brexit I think Labour will offer that and will win.
Think about it.
They would like people to believe that they might, with all sorts of weasel wording floated about. But they have not been clear. I may be wrong but far too many people are choosing to believe what they would like to be true.
Sounds like Gardeners' Question Time.