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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Well no, it isn't. What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
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.
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
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***!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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
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***!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.
What we need here is:
Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.
What we need here is:
Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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!
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.
Looks like the Scottish plan is very confusing and complicated.
What we need here is:
Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Comments
Turkey was simultaneously both joining and not joining.
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.
'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
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.
McBoris plan.
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.
What we need here is:
Stay alert > Open the pubs > Get on it!
No brain cells amongst the lot of them.
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Schools and retail - 1 June
Everything else - 22 June
Stop the furlough and other handouts - as soon as possible
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.
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 notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
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.
I've obviously upset the Tory PB hive mind.
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.
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.
Scotland is a unique place though - its the only country in Europe where garden centres will be closed this weekend.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
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.
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.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-gives-floor-speech-reforming-global-economy-preventing-chinas-domination
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 this I reckon she can see her mother in phase two if social distanced and mask etc.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
People will claim points but nobody will care a few weeks let alone a few years later.
Not much down on same time last week.
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam.
Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
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.
Do you want to go first?
I'm not looking forward to doing the swabs.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Daft.
"Government changes mind" is always "humiliating U-Turn defeat for government in trouble"
No wonder they've suppressed the circulation figures.