Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters have got the LD leadership race about right –

1234579

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    Remarkable to see Leavers who angrily argued that "Turkey is joining the EU" was not a xenophobic lie now arguing that Turkey not joining the EU is xenophobic.

    It's an irregular verb...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Remarkable to see Leavers who angrily argued that "Turkey is joining the EU" was not a xenophobic lie now arguing that Turkey not joining the EU is xenophobic.

    Schrodinger's entry.

    Turkey was simultaneously both joining and not joining.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Lol, keep the self owns coming.

    'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '

    '"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,586

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    You must have missed the memo.

    Racism in the Labour Party is quite rightly unacceptable, it is called anti-semiticism and should be called out. Jeremy Corbyn and some of his acolytes were notable proponents of this evil cancer

    Racism in the Conservative Party doesn't exist, satirical humour which may draw on racial and religious stereotypes can be used by a certain brand of Tory funster, like Boris Johnson. It is bitingly clever and hilarious but never racist! Unless of course you are Baroness Warsi who thinks it Islamaphobic and perpetrators every bit as unpleasantly unacceptable as the Anti-Semites within Labour.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    You do realise that Algeria used to be in the EEC don’t you? Because it was part of Metropolitan France.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1263442932633341954
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DougSeal said:

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    You do realise that Algeria used to be in the EEC don’t you? Because it was part of Metropolitan France.
    Yes because it was part of France, not because it was offered membership by itself. I am not 100% sure but wasn't that also before free movement existed as it does today? Did free movement apply to Algerians then?
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
    "Its too confusing - what does it mean ?"

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_xP said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1263442932633341954
    I'm just happy they have zero-indexed their alert level.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    I can see arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with a brick wall.
    I don't suppose you've yet come to terms with the fact that on this thread you've argued that discrimination against a religion is obviously racist, and yet simultaneously maintained that an immigration system that has the practical effect of giving free movement only to populations that are 95% white is not racist.

    That's a wee bit of a logical contradiction :wink:
    Well no, it isn't. What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Good to see the Scottish government can use cut n paste.

    McBoris plan.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    You must have missed the memo.

    Racism in the Labour Party is quite rightly unacceptable, it is called anti-semiticism and should be called out. Jeremy Corbyn and some of his acolytes were notable proponents of this evil cancer

    Racism in the Conservative Party doesn't exist, satirical humour which may draw on racial and religious stereotypes can be used by a certain brand of Tory funster, like Boris Johnson. It is bitingly clever and hilarious but never racist! Unless of course you are Baroness Warsi who thinks it Islamaphobic and perpetrators every bit as unpleasantly unacceptable as the Anti-Semites within Labour.
    Memo received, a bit late.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,586

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    I can see arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with a brick wall.
    I don't suppose you've yet come to terms with the fact that on this thread you've argued that discrimination against a religion is obviously racist, and yet simultaneously maintained that an immigration system that has the practical effect of giving free movement only to populations that are 95% white is not racist.

    That's a wee bit of a logical contradiction :wink:
    Well no, it isn't. What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
    Don't worry. If they can't blind you with science they will try to baffle you with bulls***!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2020

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    You must have missed the memo.

    Racism in the Labour Party is quite rightly unacceptable, it is called anti-semiticism and should be called out. Jeremy Corbyn and some of his acolytes were notable proponents of this evil cancer

    Racism in the Conservative Party doesn't exist, satirical humour which may draw on racial and religious stereotypes can be used by a certain brand of Tory funster, like Boris Johnson. It is bitingly clever and hilarious but never racist! Unless of course you are Baroness Warsi who thinks it Islamaphobic and perpetrators every bit as unpleasantly unacceptable as the Anti-Semites within Labour.
    Racism in the Conservative Party can exist and should be rooted out when it does.

    But racism in the Conservative Party is nothing like the Labour Party under Corbyn and Warsi is a religious extremist who perceives slights were there are none like other religious extremists can do.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    DougSeal said:

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    You do realise that Algeria used to be in the EEC don’t you? Because it was part of Metropolitan France.
    Not to mention Greenland, though I'm unsure where Inuit come in the white/non white categorisation of the people who care about such things.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited May 2020

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    I can see arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with a brick wall.
    I don't suppose you've yet come to terms with the fact that on this thread you've argued that discrimination against a religion is obviously racist, and yet simultaneously maintained that an immigration system that has the practical effect of giving free movement only to populations that are 95% white is not racist.

    That's a wee bit of a logical contradiction :wink:
    Well no, it isn't. What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
    Ok - then do please explain exactly why the Tory Party is racist. I have a feeling the explanation will throw up a few contradictions with your other positions.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Lol, keep the self owns coming.

    'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '

    '"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
    I don't see how that's a self-own.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Scott_xP said:
    AHAHAHA! Yet another smear that some fools were certain would bring Boris down bites the dust.

    Here's to many, many more of the same! :smiley:
    As regular readers will know, I'm no fan of Boris, but that accusation always looked silly to me.
    What part of the saga do you think was all above board?
    Guilty as sin, conflict of interest and misuse of public money , any ordinary Joe would be in the pokey. One rule for them and jail for the plebs.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
    "Its too confusing - what does it mean ?"

    Just as with the English one, yes its rubbish. If you are going to choose a 5 point scale and England has gone for counting down from levels 5-1 then just dont count up the other way around.

    No brain cells amongst the lot of them.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,703
    Isn't immigration all about servicing our accumulated debt? 65 million aren't enough. 80 million could have managed to pay for the GFC but with the Coronavirus bill thrown in we might need 90 million or more. Most of them will want to live in places they've heard of, so Little Piddling in the Marsh will be safe for a generation or two.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2020
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
    "Its too confusing - what does it mean ?"

    Just as with the English one, yes its rubbish. If you are going to choose a 5 point scale and England has gone for counting down from levels 5-1 then just dont count up the other way around.

    No brain cells amongst the lot of them.
    No doubt one of the requirement was it had to be different from Westminster.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!

    Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411

    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
    Time to reopen!

    Schools and retail - 1 June

    Everything else - 22 June

    Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    Rob, you don't half talk bollox at times , you and Philip are turning into HYFUD's. Are you trying to pretend that coloured French people are not allowed to enter the UK on their French passports.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.

    Eh?
    What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway. :lol:
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    You are basically a right wing Liberal not a Conservative for example, apart from Brexit you could easily be an Orange Book LD

    Are you the only true Tory HYUFD? As you attack pretty much everyone else as not being pure enough...

    No Alanbrooke, Casino, Marquee Mark, Mortimer, sometimes Charles, Eadric and BigG on here too
    I wouldn't describe myself as a Tory, more a creature of the right. The days of my tribal voting are behind me.
    You have 'something of the right' about you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    RobD said:

    .

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    Sturgeon - latest estimate of R 0.7-1.0, but estimate is "below 1" - but below 1 for 3 weeks - so time to move forward in careful relaxation.

    It's been below one for three weeks. I thought she was saying it was above 1 last week?
    Only in the minds of Tories trying to score points Rob.
    My mistake. I've just looked back and it was that she couldn't be sure it was significantly below one which is fair enough. I do remember there being some issue with her using the R number as justification for keeping things as they were but then not knowing what it is. Perhaps that was not knowing it during the briefing itself.
    Yes she had a range and like everyone else , Scientists included knew it was impossible to just give an R number specific. It was the pathetic unionist press in Scotland that made it sound bad, just usual fibs.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Ave_it said:

    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
    Time to reopen!

    Schools and retail - 1 June

    Everything else - 22 June

    Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
    Entirely based on the science of course
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    @HYUFD

    Lloyd George never led the Liberals into government. In reverse order the people who did are Sinclair in 1945, Samuel in 1931, Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Gladstone in 1868, 1880 (sort of) 1885 and 1892.

    @Andy_Cooke

    In 1918 the Liberal party was in opposition. However, a significant number of MPs, indeed, nearly half the party, had resigned the whip and joined a national government under the leadership of former Liberal Chancellor and Minister of War Lloyd George. The Liberal Party lost over 230 seats that year, falling to third place - the second steepest fall ever recorded (the steepest being the Unionists’ 246 in 1906).
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.

    Eh?
    What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway. :lol:
    There are loads of conflicting opinions on Thatch held by loads of people but I'd venture only one of them thinks she had red hair.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
    I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.

    Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?

    (i) Yes
    (ii) No

    Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?

    (i) No
    (ii) Yes

    There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.

    I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    I can see arguing with you is about as useful as arguing with a brick wall.
    I don't suppose you've yet come to terms with the fact that on this thread you've argued that discrimination against a religion is obviously racist, and yet simultaneously maintained that an immigration system that has the practical effect of giving free movement only to populations that are 95% white is not racist.

    That's a wee bit of a logical contradiction :wink:
    Well no, it isn't. What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
    Don't worry. If they can't blind you with science they will try to baffle you with bulls***!
    Thanks mate.

    I've obviously upset the Tory PB hive mind.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    TGOHF666 said:

    Sturgeon wants a 4 day week - jings.

    You don't realise that is better than a NO day week as at present.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!

    Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...

    Rural East Anglia had an enduring non-conformist tradition (Congregationalist rather than Methodist though). So Labour were surprisingly strong in parts there till quite recently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    1
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    AHAHAHA! Yet another smear that some fools were certain would bring Boris down bites the dust.

    Here's to many, many more of the same! :smiley:
    Sleazy PM gets away with yet another sleazy episode and dimwitted Tories clap their twelve fingers in delight
    If theres no crime theres no crime, party politics should not decide how one feels about that.

    However, it is perfectly possible that inappropriate things can happen which should be censured, even if there was no crime. Again, I don't see why party politics would decide how one feels about that.

    The saga is not over, we'll see if he breached the required standards.

    But I do find the instant dismissal when someone is cleared of criminal wrongdoing (or not to be charged etc) distasteful. It's ok to still think they behaved in a way that should be criticised, and of course it's ok to think and argue that courts or whichever body is involved got it wrong. But usually its just partisan 'I dont like it and they are still therefore guilty' which rather shows the true motivation and very conveniently means people dont need to amend their opinion in response to a new situation.

    An example would be the prorogation case. Had it been found to be lawful as a lower court ruled it would have been wrong to ignore that and insist it was unlawful still, but to me it was still the wrong thing to do whether or not it was legal and that's different.

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    What a ludicrous argument.

    Firstly, EU free movement clearly isn't limited to white people. More white people benefit because more EU citizens are white than not, but quite a lot are non-white and there is no difference between them and their white neighbours in this respect.

    Secondly, there continues to be reciprocal free movement between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (or between Carlisle and Coventry) which you are completely happy with. These all happen to have a large majority of citizens who are of white European descent. Being as, y'know, they are in the continent of Europe. That is no different from when, as EU citizens, the list extended to a large number of European neighbours.

    If your position was that we should actually have reciprocal free movement with any country requesting it, then that would at least have the logic of internal consistency. But that isn't your argument at all.

    Look, I've no problem with the Brexit vote - I'd rather we'd remained but we didn't, and we go on. And there are legitimate arguments for limiting reciprocal free movement within the EU, albeit not ones that win me over. But I do object to facile, dim-witted nonsense based on fundamental, wilful ignorance of the system we've left and the system we're adopting.
    Superb post.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    DougSeal said:

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    You do realise that Algeria used to be in the EEC don’t you? Because it was part of Metropolitan France.
    Not to mention Greenland, though I'm unsure where Inuit come in the white/non white categorisation of the people who care about such things.
    I believe that as “First People” they trump everything
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited May 2020

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Sturgeon wants a 4 day week - jings.

    You don't realise that is better than a NO day week as at present.
    I've never been off malc.

    Scotland is a unique place though - its the only country in Europe where garden centres will be closed this weekend.

  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Sturgeon wants a 4 day week - jings.

    You don't realise that is better than a NO day week as at present.
    Isn't it normally a no day working week for most in Scotland?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
    I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.

    Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?

    (i) Yes
    (ii) No

    Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?

    (i) No
    (ii) Yes

    There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.

    I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
    Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey.
    Secondly multiple things can be true.
    Thirdly what you said was "very few".

    If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited May 2020

    Ave_it said:

    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
    Time to reopen!

    Schools and retail - 1 June

    Everything else - 22 June

    Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
    Entirely based on the science of course
    Well quite

    The champion of the Oxford model Sunetra Gupta, Theoretical Epidemioloy Professor there, opines today we may have done better by doing nothing at all and that we could open the pubs tomorrow with no deleterious effect.

    So there's the science and then there's the science

    Its quite clear there is no science, just a bunch of cowards trying to evade responsibility for anything.

    I believe the case against lockdown is hardening and building.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    edited May 2020
    Deleted, premature posting due to iPad slipping...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    Scott_xP said:
    I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    ydoethur said:

    @HYUFD

    Lloyd George never led the Liberals into government. In reverse order the people who did are Sinclair in 1945, Samuel in 1931, Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Gladstone in 1868, 1880 (sort of) 1885 and 1892.

    @Andy_Cooke

    In 1918 the Liberal party was in opposition. However, a significant number of MPs, indeed, nearly half the party, had resigned the whip and joined a national government under the leadership of former Liberal Chancellor and Minister of War Lloyd George. The Liberal Party lost over 230 seats that year, falling to third place - the second steepest fall ever recorded (the steepest being the Unionists’ 246 in 1906).

    And the Liberals also won 172 seats as Coalition Liberals.

    The Liberal Party has always had a penchant for splitting. The Liberal Unionists earlier, and the Coalition Liberals (which were the majority of the Liberal Party of the time, including the Liberal Prime Minister - but not the Party Leader, a lesson noted with care by Churchill for the future) at this time, which was what gave Labour their opportunity under FPTP.

    Many seats had only one or other of the Liberal choices; in others, Liberal fought Liberal.

    And, of course, in the Thirties, they split again with Official Liberals, National Liberals, and Lloyd-George Liberals (the splinter of a splinter that was literally just members of his own family).

    An unwise habit under FPTP.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    kle4 said:

    I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!

    It's appropriate as it implies they lose twice as much political capital when the inevitable U-turn happens.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    For the avoidance of doubt references to Turkey joining the EU were

    Ave_it said:

    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
    Time to reopen!

    Schools and retail - 1 June

    Everything else - 22 June

    Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
    Entirely based on the science of course
    Well quite

    The champion of the Oxford model Sunetra Gupta, Theoretical Epidemioloy Professor there, opines today we may have done better by doing nothing at all and that we could open the pubs tomorrow with no deleterious effect.

    So there's the science and then there's the science

    Its quite clear there is no science, just a bunch of cowards trying to evade responsibility for anything.

    I believe the case against lockdown is hardening and building.
    Well of course it is were 10 weeks in or whatever. Itd be stunning if the case against it was not building.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Lol, keep the self owns coming.

    'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '

    '"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
    I don't see how that's a self-own.
    You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.

    Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Remarkable to see Leavers who angrily argued that "Turkey is joining the EU" was not a xenophobic lie now arguing that Turkey not joining the EU is xenophobic.

    It seems we misunderstood the Farage poster. It was a howl of outrage that 100m Turks were being stopped from honouring us with their presence.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    It will be very entertaining when more black and brown faces end up showing up on our streets.
    Why are you bringing race into it? Does racism entertain you?

    That seemed out of character.
    It does raise a point though - for those that have a racism issue, white faces from Europe are much harder to pick out of the crowd than somebody in a turban or a burqa.
    Agreed. The EU was a racist migration system. Free movement for whites but we will judge others harshly.
    Still fighting the war you have already won? Tiresome!
    To call the EU a racist migration system really calls into question his entire set of views on what is and isn't racist. But then like I say, PB Tories are never consistent.
    It was a system that discriminated against people based on where they are from. Maybe not racist, but not exactly fair.
    But not racist, thanks for acknowledging that.
    Xenophobic.
    And predominantly discriminating against people of colour. Perhaps mostly racist would be an appropriate description.
    You've truly gone off the deep end.

    PB Tories, never change.
    It's true, isn't it? Or have I not been keeping up to date with EU demographics recently. The previous system prioritised people based on where they were from over their talents. I think the system should be based around the latter.
    It was a reciprocal arrangement. I didn't need to prove my worth to a bureaucrat in order to move to Berlin, and Helmut didn't to move to London.

    Worked quite well in my view. But obviously enough of my fellow Brits disagreed, which is their right, and so here we are.

    There are arguments both ways. What I don't think is open to you is to seriously try to argue that reciprocal free movement was an inherently unfair or racist enterprise.
    When that reciprocation is limited to white countries it is.
    What a ludicrous argument.

    Firstly, EU free movement clearly isn't limited to white people. More white people benefit because more EU citizens are white than not, but quite a lot are non-white and there is no difference between them and their white neighbours in this respect.

    Secondly, there continues to be reciprocal free movement between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (or between Carlisle and Coventry) which you are completely happy with. These all happen to have a large majority of citizens who are of white European descent. Being as, y'know, they are in the continent of Europe. That is no different from when, as EU citizens, the list extended to a large number of European neighbours.

    If your position was that we should actually have reciprocal free movement with any country requesting it, then that would at least have the logic of internal consistency. But that isn't your argument at all.

    Look, I've no problem with the Brexit vote - I'd rather we'd remained but we didn't, and we go on. And there are legitimate arguments for limiting reciprocal free movement within the EU, albeit not ones that win me over. But I do object to facile, dim-witted nonsense based on fundamental, wilful ignorance of the system we've left and the system we're adopting.
    Firstly racism can be direct or indirect. Again would you consider the GOP practice of removing polling stations as an act of voter suppression in predominantly African American or Hispanic communities to be racist or not racist? There is no difference there between a white voter in an African American community than there is there neighbours, but the policy is in my eyes racist. Is it not in yours?

    Secondly England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are within the same country. I do not view Europe as one country.

    My position is that we should judge people potential migrants based upon who they are and not where they come from. I fail to see why that doesn't have the logic of internal consistency. What is lacking in internal consistency in that please?

    We can have a policy of immigration based upon where people come from, or based upon who they are. I choose who they are.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
    I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.

    Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?

    (i) Yes
    (ii) No

    Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?

    (i) No
    (ii) Yes

    There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.

    I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
    This is sort of the problem though. One of the main points of the Labour party is to take a stand against discrimination in all its forms. If they've started to pick and choose as to which minorities they do and don't want to stand behind, a considerable chunk of the positive reason to vote for them just falls away.

    The same would not be remotely true of the Conservative party, even if you accept (for the sake of an argument) that they're considerably more institutionally racist.
  • People are asking me why I keep laughing.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited May 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!

    It's appropriate as it implies they lose twice as much political capital when the inevitable U-turn happens.
    Thats nonsensical. I would suggest it vanishingly rare that opponents or media give a government less crap for u-turning, say, a week earlier. Starmer wouldnt gain double points by getting the government to drop a plan today rather than tomorrow.

    Your explanation itself proves my point that the term is one of pure spin, to extract more capital rather than being in any way descriptive.

    In fact, given the argument governments sometimes adopt what were opposition policies pre election, delaying a u turn can in fact reduce the lost capital by delaying the change until you can sneak it through it are riding higher.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Scott_xP said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1263442932633341954
    We don't need 5 , four is more than enough and no flimflam from FM.

    On this I reckon she can see her mother in phase two if social distanced and mask etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Lol, keep the self owns coming.

    'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '

    '"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
    I don't see how that's a self-own.
    You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.

    Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
    Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:

    If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.

    If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
    You need to get out more.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!

    Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...

    Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!

    Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...

    Very significant boundary and demographic changes there post 1970.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1263442932633341954
    We don't need 5 , four is more than enough and no flimflam from FM.

    On this I reckon she can see her mother in phase two if social distanced and mask etc.
    Malc, there are five ;)
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    Ave_it said:

    Ave_it said:

    Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.

    What we need here is:

    Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!

    :lol:



    You missed "die" off the end
    Time to reopen!

    Schools and retail - 1 June

    Everything else - 22 June

    Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
    Entirely based on the science of course
    Well quite

    The champion of the Oxford model Sunetra Gupta, Theoretical Epidemioloy Professor there, opines today we may have done better by doing nothing at all and that we could open the pubs tomorrow with no deleterious effect.

    So there's the science and then there's the science

    Its quite clear there is no science, just a bunch of cowards trying to evade responsibility for anything.

    I believe the case against lockdown is hardening and building.
    Mathematical modelling isn't science. The fact that the two have been conflated over the course of this epidemic is part of the problem, and explains the paucity of proper debate on the issue.

    The usual test as to whether a modeller has applied judgment appropriately is whether their answer falls within the reasonable range of estimates that would have been produced by a similarly qualified expert, using the same data. It's pretty clear that Gupta is (one of) the outlier(s), and pretty much every other epidemiologist is on much stronger ground than her.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
    You need to get out more.
    At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full :wink:
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    Rexel56 said:

    Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.

    There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    kle4 said:

    Thats nonsensical. I would suggest it vanishingly rare that opponents or media give a government less crap for u-turning, say, a week earlier. Starmer wouldnt gain double points by getting the government to drop a plan today rather than tomorrow.

    Your explanation itself proves my point that the term is one of pure spin, to extract more capital rather than being in any way descriptive.

    In fact, given the argument governments sometimes adopt what were opposition policies pre election, delaying a u turn can in fact reduce the lost capital by delaying the change until you can sneak it through it are riding higher.

    On Wednesday, Starmer asked and they said no.

    On Thursday, 3 Tory MPs asked and they said no.

    If they U-turn after more of their own supporters demand it, you are really claiming that does them no damage?

    And Starmer will get the credit for leading the charge.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411

    People are asking me why I keep laughing.

    LAB ever winning a GE again? That;s a laugh! :lol:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
    "Its too confusing - what does it mean ?"

    Just as with the English one, yes its rubbish. If you are going to choose a 5 point scale and England has gone for counting down from levels 5-1 then just dont count up the other way around.

    No brain cells amongst the lot of them.
    Jealous because ours is better and clearer than yours
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
    You need to get out more.
    At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full :wink:
    No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1263442932633341954
    We don't need 5 , four is more than enough and no flimflam from FM.

    On this I reckon she can see her mother in phase two if social distanced and mask etc.
    You have 5.

    Which building has more stories: One whose lift reaches all floors with the options 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 - or one whose lift reaches all floors with the options G, 1, 2, 3 or 4?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    kinabalu said:

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
    My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.

    The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Thats nonsensical. I would suggest it vanishingly rare that opponents or media give a government less crap for u-turning, say, a week earlier. Starmer wouldnt gain double points by getting the government to drop a plan today rather than tomorrow.

    Your explanation itself proves my point that the term is one of pure spin, to extract more capital rather than being in any way descriptive.

    In fact, given the argument governments sometimes adopt what were opposition policies pre election, delaying a u turn can in fact reduce the lost capital by delaying the change until you can sneak it through it are riding higher.

    On Wednesday, Starmer asked and they said no.

    On Thursday, 3 Tory MPs asked and they said no.

    If they U-turn after more of their own supporters demand it, you are really claiming that does them no damage?

    And Starmer will get the credit for leading the charge.
    In the grand scheme of things? No damage.

    People will claim points but nobody will care a few weeks let alone a few years later.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    Five phases? Not sure we'll be able to cope with this level of complexity.
    "Its too confusing - what does it mean ?"

    Just as with the English one, yes its rubbish. If you are going to choose a 5 point scale and England has gone for counting down from levels 5-1 then just dont count up the other way around.

    No brain cells amongst the lot of them.
    Jealous because ours is better and clearer than yours
    Its the same.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.

    And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.

    Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.

    As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
    Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.

    Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....

    You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
    I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
    False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    TGOHF666 said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Sturgeon wants a 4 day week - jings.

    You don't realise that is better than a NO day week as at present.
    I've never been off malc.

    Scotland is a unique place though - its the only country in Europe where garden centres will be closed this weekend.

    Neither have I, always work from home.
  • malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Sturgeon wants a 4 day week - jings.

    You don't realise that is better than a NO day week as at present.
    25 million people say 'hello'
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2020
    187 new deaths in England.

    Not much down on same time last week.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Rexel56 said:

    Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.

    There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
    Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    187 new deaths in England.

    They've changed the format - making the compilation system I created break..... grrr
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    kle4 said:

    1

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    AHAHAHA! Yet another smear that some fools were certain would bring Boris down bites the dust.

    Here's to many, many more of the same! :smiley:
    Sleazy PM gets away with yet another sleazy episode and dimwitted Tories clap their twelve fingers in delight
    If theres no crime theres no crime, party politics should not decide how one feels about that.

    However, it is perfectly possible that inappropriate things can happen which should be censured, even if there was no crime. Again, I don't see why party politics would decide how one feels about that.

    The saga is not over, we'll see if he breached the required standards.

    But I do find the instant dismissal when someone is cleared of criminal wrongdoing (or not to be charged etc) distasteful. It's ok to still think they behaved in a way that should be criticised, and of course it's ok to think and argue that courts or whichever body is involved got it wrong. But usually its just partisan 'I dont like it and they are still therefore guilty' which rather shows the true motivation and very conveniently means people dont need to amend their opinion in response to a new situation.

    An example would be the prorogation case. Had it been found to be lawful as a lower court ruled it would have been wrong to ignore that and insist it was unlawful still, but to me it was still the wrong thing to do whether or not it was legal and that's different.

    No-one in his position should be able to hand over public money to a squeeze and it be legal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748

    the French have said for decades they wouldn't let Turkey in because of the racial make up of Turkey.

    Citation please.
    From 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Lol, keep the self owns coming.

    'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '

    '"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
    I don't see how that's a self-own.
    You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.

    Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
    Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:

    If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.

    If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
    So to paraphrase:

    EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam.
    Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.

    Glad we cleared that up.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited May 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Thats nonsensical. I would suggest it vanishingly rare that opponents or media give a government less crap for u-turning, say, a week earlier. Starmer wouldnt gain double points by getting the government to drop a plan today rather than tomorrow.

    Your explanation itself proves my point that the term is one of pure spin, to extract more capital rather than being in any way descriptive.

    In fact, given the argument governments sometimes adopt what were opposition policies pre election, delaying a u turn can in fact reduce the lost capital by delaying the change until you can sneak it through it are riding higher.

    On Wednesday, Starmer asked and they said no.

    On Thursday, 3 Tory MPs asked and they said no.

    If they U-turn after more of their own supporters demand it, you are really claiming that does them no damage?

    And Starmer will get the credit for leading the charge.
    No I'm not claiming it would do them no damage at all. Why would think i was claiming that? I was commenting on the blatant spinning of the position not changing course (yet) through creative phrasing.

    U turns should not be viewed as inherently damaging, changing course can be sensible, but of course they are taken that way and if Starmer forces the government into a change well done him.

    That has nothing to do with me being amused by political spin terms to, as you've admitted, increase any capital gained.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.

    Eh?
    What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway. :lol:
    There are loads of conflicting opinions on Thatch held by loads of people but I'd venture only one of them thinks she had red hair.
    Lucky must be colour blind. It was same colour as Trump , Tanning salon blond.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
    I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.

    Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?

    (i) Yes
    (ii) No

    Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?

    (i) No
    (ii) Yes

    There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.

    I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
    Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey.
    Secondly multiple things can be true.
    Thirdly what you said was "very few".

    If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
    It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.

    Do you want to go first?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    On the topic of COVID19, the home tests for my wife and I have arrived and I've booked collection back for them which will be tomorrow. I'm curious to see the turnaround time then to get the results.

    I'm not looking forward to doing the swabs.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
    Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
    Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
    If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
    The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
    I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.

    Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
    Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
    Answer: You can't be.
    I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
    I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
    Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.

    But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
    Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?

    Just a thought.
    If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
    Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
    And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.

    I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.

    So there's a disconnect there.
    No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
    I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.

    Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?

    (i) Yes
    (ii) No

    Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?

    (i) No
    (ii) Yes

    There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.

    I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
    Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey.
    Secondly multiple things can be true.
    Thirdly what you said was "very few".

    If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
    It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.

    Do you want to go first?
    No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.

    BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    FF43 said:

    The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.

    You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.

    Daft.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    1

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    AHAHAHA! Yet another smear that some fools were certain would bring Boris down bites the dust.

    Here's to many, many more of the same! :smiley:
    Sleazy PM gets away with yet another sleazy episode and dimwitted Tories clap their twelve fingers in delight
    If theres no crime theres no crime, party politics should not decide how one feels about that.

    However, it is perfectly possible that inappropriate things can happen which should be censured, even if there was no crime. Again, I don't see why party politics would decide how one feels about that.

    The saga is not over, we'll see if he breached the required standards.

    But I do find the instant dismissal when someone is cleared of criminal wrongdoing (or not to be charged etc) distasteful. It's ok to still think they behaved in a way that should be criticised, and of course it's ok to think and argue that courts or whichever body is involved got it wrong. But usually its just partisan 'I dont like it and they are still therefore guilty' which rather shows the true motivation and very conveniently means people dont need to amend their opinion in response to a new situation.

    An example would be the prorogation case. Had it been found to be lawful as a lower court ruled it would have been wrong to ignore that and insist it was unlawful still, but to me it was still the wrong thing to do whether or not it was legal and that's different.

    No-one in his position should be able to hand over public money to a squeeze and it be legal.
    Not without very cautious and stringent safeguards on the decision making process certainly. If the process allowed such a thing that would be another, bigger problem.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!
    "Government sticks with plan" is not much of a story.

    "Government changes mind" is always "humiliating U-Turn defeat for government in trouble"

    No wonder they've suppressed the circulation figures.
This discussion has been closed.