The Brexit result would have been Remain 51% Leave 49% if the Remain campaign hadn't been a complete and utter shambles. That would arguably have been the best result because it would have shocked the EU out of their complacency without the UK actually leaving.
Nothing seemed to shock the EU out of their complacency. That was the problem. If the UK had voted 50.0001% remain, it would still have been full steam ahead.
I mean, Ireland voted against Lisbon - the only country actually allowed a vote on it - and yet they sailed on unperturbed.
You are missing the fact, as people like you usually do, that Ireland voted hugely in favour of Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. By more than two to one.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
I am not sure Scotland throwing off of the yoke of (the British) Empire, is any more woke than the notion that Brexit threw off the yoke of (the EU) Empire.
It's curious. Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence. Yet the EU, which we were free to leave any time, embodied the most hideous annihilation of sovereignty. What gives?
"Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence."
Utter bollocks, trotted out time after time by Remainers.
"even all"? Wrong, cuz here's a Leaver that doesn't think that. I am delighted we had a very swift to end of Empire, granting independence rapidly and without any effort at kick-back to those that wanted it. And a fuck of lot more alacrity and grace than the EU showed in letting us leave their empire....
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
I am not sure Scotland throwing off of the yoke of (the British) Empire, is any more woke than the notion that Brexit threw off the yoke of (the EU) Empire.
It's curious. Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence. Yet the EU, which we were free to leave any time, embodied the most hideous annihilation of sovereignty. What gives?
"Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence."
Utter bollocks, trotted out time after time by Remainers.
"even all"? Wrong, cuz here's a Leaver that doesn't think that. I am delighted we had a very swift to end of Empire, granting independence rapidly and without any effort at kick-back to those that wanted it. And a fuck of lot more alacrity and grace than the EU showed in letting us leave their empire....
You disagree with my claim that Leavers think the British Empire was benevolent then go on to say how benevolent you think the British Empire was. Nice one!
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
I am not sure Scotland throwing off of the yoke of (the British) Empire, is any more woke than the notion that Brexit threw off the yoke of (the EU) Empire.
It's curious. Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence. Yet the EU, which we were free to leave any time, embodied the most hideous annihilation of sovereignty. What gives?
"Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence."
Utter bollocks, trotted out time after time by Remainers.
"even all"? Wrong, cuz here's a Leaver that doesn't think that. I am delighted we had a very swift to end of Empire, granting independence rapidly and without any effort at kick-back to those that wanted it. And a fuck of lot more alacrity and grace than the EU showed in letting us leave their empire....
If you think alacrity and grace are the best adjectives for British decolonisation then I would suggest you're missing important parts of the story.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
Well, yes, people of all political persuasions label things. I'm not really sure it's just "lefties" who would refer to social reationaries as regressives. Certainly, I use the term and I'm not on the left.
We could have a wide-ranging discussion about different contested terms if you think it'll be interesting (it won't), but I focused on that one term, "woke", because that was the question. You don't have to assume I was saying that it is only such term in existence.
It's impressive that you started your nonsensical rant about politicians respecting the will of the people with that statement...
After illegally proroguing parliament, and "denying" a vote, you still claim BoZo as your champion for democracy.
Deluded doesn't begin to cover it...
The Scots had a vote. In 2014. Democracy was honoured. Etc
There is something deeply weird about Remainers seemingly egging on the Nats to have another vote, you would think they'd be against it logically.
There is something deeply weird about Leavers wanting to deny Scots the right to vote on their own future.
Specially the ones that get excited about sovereignty.
This leaver is happy for Scotland to go their own way if they so choose.
I will be interested to hear why economic dislocation will not be an issue in this particular case and why Scotland should not foot their share of the bills.
Why there will be no downsides in this case
Why you think you will get to use Sterling and be supported by our central bank - assuming the EU even let you join without adopting the euro
Oh, and why being subsumed into the EU as a very small part of same equals freedom.......
I’m happy you’re happy, just not sure why you’ve regurgitated the same weary stuff that’s been done a thousand times before. It’s just not very interesting that you’re interested.
I understand that these sorts of questions are very tiresome, inconvenient and boring, but it would also be a good idea to have plausible answers to them if the pro-independence side want to make sure that they can bag the win at the second time of asking.
From down here, many of us appreciate that most Scots don't feel in the slightest bit British and care not one iota about the rest of the country. The twee little family of nations that some Tories persist in going on about still exists on paper but is dead in spirit and probably has been for decades. The relationship is rooted in bribery and, save perhaps for a mini-festival of Union Jack waving during the Olympic Games, is stone cold and entirely transactional in nature. It's one of the best reasons for getting rid of the Union.
The death through old age of much of the dwindling cohort of elderly sentimental Unionists should help to kill it off, but your government really does need to get its ducks in a row on some key issues, in particular the currency and the budget deficit. If the cost to middle class types in Scotland of being given a matching set of little EU flags and Saltires to wave at the independence fireworks is a massive tax bill, and a pension plan redenominated into devalued groats, then they will vote in their droves to keep on taking handouts from HM Treasury. Again.
This shit matters. If the SNP stuffs up the second attempt at independence like it did the first then we may be well and truly stuck with each other, and this limbo state of sharing a zombie confederation will continue for a very long time. We won't be able to move on to a more constructive state of affairs. The stale arguments about the balance of power and money will continue. That serves no-one's best interests.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
People have answered this a thousand times, and made distinction between people who don't care about injustice or racism at all, those who do but don't agree on ways to address that, those who say they do but don't do much other than police language and symbols without actually addressing the underlying issues, etc etc
I don't believe people really think it is a debate about people who care about racism and those who do not, nobody can think that it is a binary issue like that. Some people are alert to these issues and are therefore woke by definition but don't agree with those labelled (by themselves or others) as woke when it comes to actions, and some will say they are woke by are only really focusing on trivial things.
It's certainly a lot more complex than 'oh, people object to calling out racism?'.
So in short, I think what most people are objecting to the treating of such matters as binary good or evil, when it is a lot more nuanced than that. (And yes some people will simply be racist and injust, but that is not the whole of it, and should not be treated as the whole of it anymore than treating the most irritating woke steretype as indicative of the whole).
Thanks for answering my question (and in detail!) I am afraid I am still unclear what "woke" as a derogatory term really means. I think you are saying, people can call out racism and injustice, but they may be insincere or tokenistic when they do so - in the view of those offended by their wokeness. But it seems to me pejorative "woke" is more than just misguided talk about racism and there seems to be an element of disrespecting the values of people you don't agree with. But it all seems vague to me.
It is meant to be vague. Which is why no one in government can/will define it. It means "people who don't think like me." The loony Left example shows it has a demographic shelf life.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
It is more that "progressive" does have real meaning for me. Given that the Johnson regime keeps going on about how progressive they are ( I don't think so), it's not a copyright term of the Left, I would say. If by "woke" people really mean "I disparage progressive people", that does make some sense to me.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
That WAS progressive. Too much so for New Labour. It isn't considered so now. Time moves on. As does demography. Any votes in repealing it? No. They all already vote for you.
His Tweet above sends out powerful messages that should resonate in a country that has been created by immigration.
Hmmm
Yes - I imagine the indigenous folk there might find that a bit irritating.
Even they - or rather their ancestors - were immigrants, from Siberia, most likely via the Bering Sea/Land Bridge.
Of course, Will Rogers was fond of pointing out, that while his people were NOT on the Mayflower, they met the boat.
If you go back far enough, I think you'll find ALL human populations outside of Africa are descended from a small population of Homo sapiens from the Horn of Africa roughly 200,000 years ago.
His Tweet above sends out powerful messages that should resonate in a country that has been created by immigration.
Hmmm
Yes - I imagine the indigenous folk there might find that a bit irritating.
Even they - or rather their ancestors - were immigrants, from Siberia, most likely via the Bering Sea/Land Bridge.
Of course, Will Rogers was fond of pointing out, that while his people were NOT on the Mayflower, they met the boat.
If you go back far enough, I think you'll find ALL human populations outside of Africa are descended from a small population of Homo sapiens from the Horn of Africa roughly 200,000 years ago.
Yeah. We couldn't be more inbred if we were in a sandwich.
I can offer an initial, provisional report on the Crown season four episode Fagan.
Remember: this is the 1960s proto-PIRA, or, if you prefer, Alan Sked-led UKIP, or even Scott P's 2021 Rejoin Party (which exists solely in his own shrivelled and tiny testicles), of televisual critique, but:
The Crown has absolutely nailed what it was like to be Michael Fagan in London in about 1982. Superb
So can you tell us a bit about your experiences with Mr. Fagan?
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
You can analyse that particular policy in more than one way. I'd just as soon take it as a right-libertarian move, in that the state has no business forbidding adults from entering into whatever legal partnerships with one another they choose.
His Tweet above sends out powerful messages that should resonate in a country that has been created by immigration.
Hmmm
Yes - I imagine the indigenous folk there might find that a bit irritating.
Even they - or rather their ancestors - were immigrants, from Siberia, most likely via the Bering Sea/Land Bridge.
Of course, Will Rogers was fond of pointing out, that while his people were NOT on the Mayflower, they met the boat.
If you go back far enough, I think you'll find ALL human populations outside of Africa are descended from a small population of Homo sapiens from the Horn of Africa roughly 200,000 years ago.
Perhaps that may by why "having the horn" is so stereotypically human?
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
That WAS progressive. Too much so for New Labour. It isn't considered so now. Time moves on. Any votes in repealing it? No. They all already vote for you.
Well, yes, that's true enough. I'm judging him by the standards of the day. All this is, of course, context-dependent. My only point for bringing Cameron up is to put a wedge between the false coupling of "left" and "progressive". Of course, left and right are also context-dependent terms.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
I am not sure Scotland throwing off of the yoke of (the British) Empire, is any more woke than the notion that Brexit threw off the yoke of (the EU) Empire.
It's curious. Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence. Yet the EU, which we were free to leave any time, embodied the most hideous annihilation of sovereignty. What gives?
"Many, perhaps even all, Leavers, while conceding that there might have been a few rum episodes, tend to proclaim that the British Empire, which imposed itself upon a load of unwilling countries, was generally a thing of benevolence."
Utter bollocks, trotted out time after time by Remainers.
"even all"? Wrong, cuz here's a Leaver that doesn't think that. I am delighted we had a very swift to end of Empire, granting independence rapidly and without any effort at kick-back to those that wanted it. And a fuck of lot more alacrity and grace than the EU showed in letting us leave their empire....
The exiled Chagos Islanders, a number of elderly Kenyan gentlemen who are minus their balls, and of course absolutely everyone from the Indian Congress movement backwards who ever resisted British colonisation, might have something to say about these assertions.
But yes, the general point concerning lazy, blanket generalisations about Leavers and Remainers stands. And it's all so very, very tired. The near-complete smothering by coronavirus of Europe-related mudslinging on media outlets for most of 2020 was one of the few positives of a truly dismal year.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
You can analyse that particular policy in more than one way. I'd just as soon take it as a right-libertarian move, in that the state has no business forbidding adults from entering into whatever legal partnerships with one another they choose.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
You can analyse that particular policy in more than one way. I'd just as soon take it as a right-libertarian move, in that the state has no business forbidding adults from entering into whatever legal partnerships with one another they choose.
Yes, that's also a fair description. Equal marriage fits very comfortably in both. These things overlap.
It's impressive that you started your nonsensical rant about politicians respecting the will of the people with that statement...
After illegally proroguing parliament, and "denying" a vote, you still claim BoZo as your champion for democracy.
Deluded doesn't begin to cover it...
The Scots had a vote. In 2014. Democracy was honoured. Etc
There is something deeply weird about Remainers seemingly egging on the Nats to have another vote, you would think they'd be against it logically.
There is something deeply weird about Leavers wanting to deny Scots the right to vote on their own future.
Specially the ones that get excited about sovereignty.
This leaver is happy for Scotland to go their own way if they so choose.
I will be interested to hear why economic dislocation will not be an issue in this particular case and why Scotland should not foot their share of the bills.
Why there will be no downsides in this case
Why you think you will get to use Sterling and be supported by our central bank - assuming the EU even let you join without adopting the euro
Oh, and why being subsumed into the EU as a very small part of same equals freedom.......
I’m happy you’re happy, just not sure why you’ve regurgitated the same weary stuff that’s been done a thousand times before. It’s just not very interesting that you’re interested.
I understand that these sorts of questions are very tiresome, inconvenient and boring, but it would also be a good idea to have plausible answers to them if the pro-independence side want to make sure that they can bag the win at the second time of asking.
From down here, many of us appreciate that most Scots don't feel in the slightest bit British and care not one iota about the rest of the country. The twee little family of nations that some Tories persist in going on about still exists on paper but is dead in spirit and probably has been for decades. The relationship is rooted in bribery and, save perhaps for a mini-festival of Union Jack waving during the Olympic Games, is stone cold and entirely transactional in nature. It's one of the best reasons for getting rid of the Union.
The death through old age of much of the dwindling cohort of elderly sentimental Unionists should help to kill it off, but your government really does need to get its ducks in a row on some key issues, in particular the currency and the budget deficit. If the cost to middle class types in Scotland of being given a matching set of little EU flags and Saltires to wave at the independence fireworks is a massive tax bill, and a pension plan redenominated into devalued groats, then they will vote in their droves to keep on taking handouts from HM Treasury. Again.
This shit matters. If the SNP stuffs up the second attempt at independence like it did the first then we may be well and truly stuck with each other, and this limbo state of sharing a zombie confederation will continue for a very long time. We won't be able to move on to a more constructive state of affairs. The stale arguments about the balance of power and money will continue. That serves no-one's best interests.
I realised after the first time round that trying to persuade people who don't have a vote, particularly ones who adopt a snippy, passive aggressive tone when they ask their 'questions', is an utter waste of time. Bickering on the internet with such people otoh can be put in with the largely non essential stuff you can do to pass the time until you die, like CoD, pulling out nostril hairs and going on PB.
It's impressive that you started your nonsensical rant about politicians respecting the will of the people with that statement...
After illegally proroguing parliament, and "denying" a vote, you still claim BoZo as your champion for democracy.
Deluded doesn't begin to cover it...
The Scots had a vote. In 2014. Democracy was honoured. Etc
There is something deeply weird about Remainers seemingly egging on the Nats to have another vote, you would think they'd be against it logically.
There is something deeply weird about Leavers wanting to deny Scots the right to vote on their own future.
Specially the ones that get excited about sovereignty.
This leaver is happy for Scotland to go their own way if they so choose.
I will be interested to hear why economic dislocation will not be an issue in this particular case and why Scotland should not foot their share of the bills.
Why there will be no downsides in this case
Why you think you will get to use Sterling and be supported by our central bank - assuming the EU even let you join without adopting the euro
Oh, and why being subsumed into the EU as a very small part of same equals freedom.......
I’m happy you’re happy, just not sure why you’ve regurgitated the same weary stuff that’s been done a thousand times before. It’s just not very interesting that you’re interested.
I understand that these sorts of questions are very tiresome, inconvenient and boring, but it would also be a good idea to have plausible answers to them if the pro-independence side want to make sure that they can bag the win at the second time of asking.
From down here, many of us appreciate that most Scots don't feel in the slightest bit British and care not one iota about the rest of the country. The twee little family of nations that some Tories persist in going on about still exists on paper but is dead in spirit and probably has been for decades. The relationship is rooted in bribery and, save perhaps for a mini-festival of Union Jack waving during the Olympic Games, is stone cold and entirely transactional in nature. It's one of the best reasons for getting rid of the Union.
The death through old age of much of the dwindling cohort of elderly sentimental Unionists should help to kill it off, but your government really does need to get its ducks in a row on some key issues, in particular the currency and the budget deficit. If the cost to middle class types in Scotland of being given a matching set of little EU flags and Saltires to wave at the independence fireworks is a massive tax bill, and a pension plan redenominated into devalued groats, then they will vote in their droves to keep on taking handouts from HM Treasury. Again.
This shit matters. If the SNP stuffs up the second attempt at independence like it did the first then we may be well and truly stuck with each other, and this limbo state of sharing a zombie confederation will continue for a very long time. We won't be able to move on to a more constructive state of affairs. The stale arguments about the balance of power and money will continue. That serves no-one's best interests.
I realised after the first time round that trying to persuade people who don't have a vote, particularly ones who adopt a snippy, passive aggressive tone when they ask their 'questions', is an utter waste of time. Bickering on the internet with such people otoh can be put in with the largely non essential stuff you can do to pass the time until you die, like CoD, pulling out nostril hairs and going on PB.
CoD?
EDIT: never mind, just realised how bloody late it is. Been passing a bit too much time doing non essential stuff, obviously. Goodnight.
Yeah, I don't think wokeness is really the biggest contributory factor here. If only it were that easy!
"Woke" appears to be assuming the role of a magical incantation in Whitehall. No one quite knows what it means, or how it works, but there is deep faith in its powers to make all issues go away.
Serious question, what does "woke" mean to those that bandy the term around, including on here?
The dictionary definition is:
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Surely no-one can object to injustice and racism being called out, even if privately they may be a bit that way themselves. So what are they really objecting to and why should the rest of us sign up?
The socially regressive right is quite innovative and nimble in its adoption of new labels, because during the growth phase of their use, people are confused about what the words mean. Regressives use stories, both fictional and factual, of absurd or unjust situations and attach the new label to that situation in order to discredit all progressive movements. Eventually, the term becomes widely understood and people start to separate out the good from the bad and the regressives have to move onto a new label. We've seen previous iterations, with "pc" being the most famous, and "cultural marxism" being one that never really got far from its far-right origins. It's a label that's now used primarily with hostile meaning, but it's usually used too carelessly to actually divine any meaning from it. Every so often an enthusiast will try to deploy a coherent theory of the word, but these will usually be a little too tortured to be useful. It's best to think of it as meaning "all the progressive things I don't accept" in the same way as "pc gone mad" was used. The more important part to the user is the feeling expressed rather than any concrete definition.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems plausible.
Uh huh. Whereas of course lefties would never come up with tendentious terms like 'progressive' to describe everything they do, and 'regressive' to disparage everything they don't like...
So "woke" is a synonym for "progressive" ? Like beauty which term you use is in the eye of the beholder?
They are fairly close synonyms - both terms were popularized by those on the left wishing to praise themselves for their terribly bold uprisings against the status quo, no matter how illogical, unjustified, or historically illiterate their conceptions of progress or awakening happen to be.
I would put David Cameron firmly in the progressive camp, and I don't think many people would describe him as "left". I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
You can analyse that particular policy in more than one way. I'd just as soon take it as a right-libertarian move, in that the state has no business forbidding adults from entering into whatever legal partnerships with one another they choose.
What about serfdom?
Sure, I'm always on the lookout for good people, and you are an excellent punster...
Anyway, I knew you were going to say that. In practice, you'd have to put some statutory limits on what contracts can be agreed, which is why I'm not a pure libertarian.
Come to think of it though, some progressives have been telling us for a long time that marriage is itself a form of serfdom, so perhaps extending marriage equality was ultimately a regressive thing to do... Cameron, you sly old fox.
I liked what I saw of Ossoff, but he strikes me as a more liberal version of Buttigieg (who Mike also likes). I thinhk we both tend to pick more cerebral favourites than the US electorate. Obama and Clinton were both intellectuals, but Clinton disguises it well with his folksy manner and people focus on Obama being the first black president.
Currently reading Obama's book - nothing amazing so far, but thoughtful and pleasantly modest and given to self-doubt at times.
I liked what I saw of Ossoff, but he strikes me as a more liberal version of Buttigieg (who Mike also likes). I thinhk we both tend to pick more cerebral favourites than the US electorate. Obama and Clinton were both intellectuals, but Clinton disguises it well with his folksy manner and people focus on Obama being the first black president.
Currently reading Obama's book - nothing amazing so far, but thoughtful and pleasantly modest and given to self-doubt at times.
"more liberal version of Buttigieg" - Is that possible?
"Obama's book - nothing amazing so far, but thoughtful and pleasantly modest" - Kinda of like his presidency.
It's impressive that you started your nonsensical rant about politicians respecting the will of the people with that statement...
After illegally proroguing parliament, and "denying" a vote, you still claim BoZo as your champion for democracy.
Deluded doesn't begin to cover it...
The Scots had a vote. In 2014. Democracy was honoured. Etc
There is something deeply weird about Remainers seemingly egging on the Nats to have another vote, you would think they'd be against it logically.
There is something deeply weird about Leavers wanting to deny Scots the right to vote on their own future.
Specially the ones that get excited about sovereignty.
This leaver is happy for Scotland to go their own way if they so choose.
I will be interested to hear why economic dislocation will not be an issue in this particular case and why Scotland should not foot their share of the bills.
Why there will be no downsides in this case
Why you think you will get to use Sterling and be supported by our central bank - assuming the EU even let you join without adopting the euro
Oh, and why being subsumed into the EU as a very small part of same equals freedom.......
I’m happy you’re happy, just not sure why you’ve regurgitated the same weary stuff that’s been done a thousand times before. It’s just not very interesting that you’re interested.
It's impressive that you started your nonsensical rant about politicians respecting the will of the people with that statement...
After illegally proroguing parliament, and "denying" a vote, you still claim BoZo as your champion for democracy.
Deluded doesn't begin to cover it...
The Scots had a vote. In 2014. Democracy was honoured. Etc
There is something deeply weird about Remainers seemingly egging on the Nats to have another vote, you would think they'd be against it logically.
There is something deeply weird about Leavers wanting to deny Scots the right to vote on their own future.
Specially the ones that get excited about sovereignty.
This leaver is happy for Scotland to go their own way if they so choose.
I will be interested to hear why economic dislocation will not be an issue in this particular case and why Scotland should not foot their share of the bills.
Why there will be no downsides in this case
Why you think you will get to use Sterling and be supported by our central bank - assuming the EU even let you join without adopting the euro
Oh, and why being subsumed into the EU as a very small part of same equals freedom.......
I’m happy you’re happy, just not sure why you’ve regurgitated the same weary stuff that’s been done a thousand times before. It’s just not very interesting that you’re interested.
They have no idea if they died because of COVID, no idea of how many weeks since they had the first jab and none of these vaccines are 100%. Very old frail people in care homes unfortunately die on a regular basis regardless of COVID and very few people are more than 3 weeks out from their first jab. Before Christmas hardly any care homes residents were getting vaccinated.
Furthermore most care homes residents aren't getting the Pfizer jab, so the argument about changing the dosing strategy is not relevant. AZN, the evidence is much stronger to leave the second dose and the BMI are calling for the government to change for that vaccine.
Four vaccination centres have been shut as Wales braces for more snowy weather.
Appointments at the Bridgend, Rhondda, Abercynon and Merthyr Tydfil centres for Sunday will be rescheduled for safety reasons, the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board said.
From Brexit on, we British get to directly elect, or deselect, those who govern us. This is not the case in the EU, and there are no signs of it reforming.
Under FPTP? Dream on.
We will get our permanent ruling class, ever failing upwards. And their cheerleaders in the media. You might know some.
The EU may approve the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine at the end of the month. Because we're not in any sort of hurry to get people vaccinated in Europe and around the world. 😔
The EU may approve the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine at the end of the month. Because we're not in any sort of hurry to get people vaccinated in Europe and around the world. 😔
Historical Scenarios - Democratic Presidential First Terms
In evaluating the prospects of Joe Biden in potentially running for re-election in 2024, it is worth considering the experience of fellow Democrats over the last century who have preceded him as first-term POTUS elected in place of OR in succession to a Republican incumbent:
> Woodrow Wilson, one hotly-contested Democratic nomination; elected 1912 versus one-term Republican incumbent William H. Taft (who came in 3rd behind Republican former president and defector Theodore Roosevelt but ahead of Socialist Eugene V. Debs); re-nominated without difficulty in 1916, re-elected narrowly versus Charles E. Hughes.
> Franklin D. Roosevelt, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1932 versus one-term incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover, renominated without difficulty in 1936, re-elected by landslide versus Alf Landon.
> John F. Kennedy, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1960 versus incumbent VP Richard M. Nixon; assassinated 1963, likely he'd have been re-nominated without difficulty, same as his VP and successor Lyndon B. Johnson was; LBJ was elected in 1964 by a landslide over Barry Goldwater, which suggests JFK likely would also have defeated AuH2O.
> Jimmy Carter, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1976 against non-elected, 3/4-term Republican incumbent Gerald R. Ford; re-nominated after hotly-contested primary campaign (versus Ted Kennedy); defeated for re-election by Ronald Reagan (with independent Republican John Anderson coming in distant 3rd).
> Bill Clinton, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1992 versus one-term Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (who was also challenged by conservative independent Ross Perot who came in respectable 3rd); re-nominated without difficulty; re-elected in 1996 versus Bob Dole.
Of the five Presidents listed above:
> Four out of 5 defeated incumbent Republican presidents, while the 5th (JFK) beat incumbent 2-term GOP VP.
> Four out of 5 were re-nominated without difficulty AND re-elected to a 2nd term (the odd man out being Carter)
> Two out of 4 who were elected were aided by independent candidates that took more votes from Republican incumbent than them.
> Four out of four who served out their full 1st term ran and were re-nominated for a 2nd.
Looking forward, perhaps the question re: Joe Biden is this: which of the examples above will he most closely resemble, and why?
The 32 sites will prioritise health and social care staff on Monday, and other priority patients from Tuesday.
They will bring the number of mass vaccination sites across England to 49 as well as 70 pharmacies, more than 1,000 GP surgeries and 250 hospitals offering the jab.
For the sake of all four UK nations, Her Majesty's Govt in Westminster, where Scots are wholly and democratically represented, must say No to another vote.
As a Scot, a Conservative and Unionist, respectfully, Fuck Off.
Comments
Utter bollocks, trotted out time after time by Remainers.
"even all"? Wrong, cuz here's a Leaver that doesn't think that. I am delighted we had a very swift to end of Empire, granting independence rapidly and without any effort at kick-back to those that wanted it. And a fuck of lot more alacrity and grace than the EU showed in letting us leave their empire....
We could have a wide-ranging discussion about different contested terms if you think it'll be interesting (it won't), but I focused on that one term, "woke", because that was the question. You don't have to assume I was saying that it is only such term in existence.
From down here, many of us appreciate that most Scots don't feel in the slightest bit British and care not one iota about the rest of the country. The twee little family of nations that some Tories persist in going on about still exists on paper but is dead in spirit and probably has been for decades. The relationship is rooted in bribery and, save perhaps for a mini-festival of Union Jack waving during the Olympic Games, is stone cold and entirely transactional in nature. It's one of the best reasons for getting rid of the Union.
The death through old age of much of the dwindling cohort of elderly sentimental Unionists should help to kill it off, but your government really does need to get its ducks in a row on some key issues, in particular the currency and the budget deficit. If the cost to middle class types in Scotland of being given a matching set of little EU flags and Saltires to wave at the independence fireworks is a massive tax bill, and a pension plan redenominated into devalued groats, then they will vote in their droves to keep on taking handouts from HM Treasury. Again.
This shit matters. If the SNP stuffs up the second attempt at independence like it did the first then we may be well and truly stuck with each other, and this limbo state of sharing a zombie confederation will continue for a very long time. We won't be able to move on to a more constructive state of affairs. The stale arguments about the balance of power and money will continue. That serves no-one's best interests.
It means "people who don't think like me."
The loony Left example shows it has a demographic shelf life.
Of course, Will Rogers was fond of pointing out, that while his people were NOT on the Mayflower, they met the boat.
I mean, he was the PM who introduced equal marriage in England. That's progressive.
Any votes in repealing it? No. They all already vote for you.
My only point for bringing Cameron up is to put a wedge between the false coupling of "left" and "progressive". Of course, left and right are also context-dependent terms.
But yes, the general point concerning lazy, blanket generalisations about Leavers and Remainers stands. And it's all so very, very tired. The near-complete smothering by coronavirus of Europe-related mudslinging on media outlets for most of 2020 was one of the few positives of a truly dismal year.
EDIT: never mind, just realised how bloody late it is. Been passing a bit too much time doing non essential stuff, obviously. Goodnight.
Anyway, I knew you were going to say that. In practice, you'd have to put some statutory limits on what contracts can be agreed, which is why I'm not a pure libertarian.
Come to think of it though, some progressives have been telling us for a long time that marriage is itself a form of serfdom, so perhaps extending marriage equality was ultimately a regressive thing to do... Cameron, you sly old fox.
Currently reading Obama's book - nothing amazing so far, but thoughtful and pleasantly modest and given to self-doubt at times.
"Obama's book - nothing amazing so far, but thoughtful and pleasantly modest" - Kinda of like his presidency.
Care home residents dying after first jab as Boris Johnson gambles on vaccine delay
Those in care homes – where residents who have had the first dose are dying before they get the second – are once again being thrown to the wolves.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/care-home-residents-dying-after-23373801
They have no idea if they died because of COVID, no idea of how many weeks since they had the first jab and none of these vaccines are 100%. Very old frail people in care homes unfortunately die on a regular basis regardless of COVID and very few people are more than 3 weeks out from their first jab. Before Christmas hardly any care homes residents were getting vaccinated.
Furthermore most care homes residents aren't getting the Pfizer jab, so the argument about changing the dosing strategy is not relevant. AZN, the evidence is much stronger to leave the second dose and the BMI are calling for the government to change for that vaccine.
Appointments at the Bridgend, Rhondda, Abercynon and Merthyr Tydfil centres for Sunday will be rescheduled for safety reasons, the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-55764501
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1353111191678316545?s=20
We will get our permanent ruling class, ever failing upwards. And their cheerleaders in the media. You might know some.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55780431
In evaluating the prospects of Joe Biden in potentially running for re-election in 2024, it is worth considering the experience of fellow Democrats over the last century who have preceded him as first-term POTUS elected in place of OR in succession to a Republican incumbent:
> Woodrow Wilson, one hotly-contested Democratic nomination; elected 1912 versus one-term Republican incumbent William H. Taft (who came in 3rd behind Republican former president and defector Theodore Roosevelt but ahead of Socialist Eugene V. Debs); re-nominated without difficulty in 1916, re-elected narrowly versus Charles E. Hughes.
> Franklin D. Roosevelt, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1932 versus one-term incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover, renominated without difficulty in 1936, re-elected by landslide versus Alf Landon.
> John F. Kennedy, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1960 versus incumbent VP Richard M. Nixon; assassinated 1963, likely he'd have been re-nominated without difficulty, same as his VP and successor Lyndon B. Johnson was; LBJ was elected in 1964 by a landslide over Barry Goldwater, which suggests JFK likely would also have defeated AuH2O.
> Jimmy Carter, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1976 against non-elected, 3/4-term Republican incumbent Gerald R. Ford; re-nominated after hotly-contested primary campaign (versus Ted Kennedy); defeated for re-election by Ronald Reagan (with independent Republican John Anderson coming in distant 3rd).
> Bill Clinton, won hotly-contested Dem nomination; elected 1992 versus one-term Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (who was also challenged by conservative independent Ross Perot who came in respectable 3rd); re-nominated without difficulty; re-elected in 1996 versus Bob Dole.
Of the five Presidents listed above:
> Four out of 5 defeated incumbent Republican presidents, while the 5th (JFK) beat incumbent 2-term GOP VP.
> Four out of 5 were re-nominated without difficulty AND re-elected to a 2nd term (the odd man out being Carter)
> Two out of 4 who were elected were aided by independent candidates that took more votes from Republican incumbent than them.
> Four out of four who served out their full 1st term ran and were re-nominated for a 2nd.
Looking forward, perhaps the question re: Joe Biden is this: which of the examples above will he most closely resemble, and why?
They will bring the number of mass vaccination sites across England to 49 as well as 70 pharmacies, more than 1,000 GP surgeries and 250 hospitals offering the jab.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55784199
If people want a vote they should have a vote.