That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
You make HYFUD sound sane.
Good to have you back, malcy
Thank you, I note knowledge of matters in Scotland have not improved in my absence.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
No, other countries actions are quite relevant.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
I have often wondered, in the situation we now face, whether a Tory/Labour/LibDem “National Government” is workable if the numbers allowed it? E.g. Would their leaderships go for it, or even a “two of three with confidence and supply from others” deal.
You do have to assume that if there is ever again a unionist Scottish government, then Westminster (whoever was in power) would bust a gut to help it succeed.
Thank you @CorrectHorseBattery, all good here thanks and hope you and everyone around you are well. Good to hear from you. I dip in and out of here but always good to see you.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
No, other countries actions are quite relevant.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
It is quite likely that the group least likely to have photo ID are retired CDE voters.
Not that this justifies US style voter suppression attempts.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
I visit Scotland A LOT (probably more than most English PBers) and I have close friends and family living there. I simply don’t recognise this portrait. Scotland is not a ‘catastrophic disaster’. Yes it has problems but so does every country on earth, it is also prosperous and peaceful. Scotland is not a tartan Venezuela. It is bizarre that a Nat should make this surreal argument, but I suppose you have to, for the cause
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
No, other countries actions are quite relevant.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
It is quite likely that the group least likely to have photo ID are retired CDE voters.
Not that this justifies US style voter suppression attempts.
Surely nobody thinks this is a good idea? It’s been shown that there’s almost no fraud, and if we did do this then after all the shouting had died down we’d end up providing free photo ID to anyone that needed one like in NI. So, basically, a large cost to address a non existent problem. I think the free ID would prevent people being excluded, but it looks like a massive waste of money to me.
Edit - Labour should put the likely cost on the wide of a bus, and suggest we spent it on the NHS instead.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
If your mental image of "Bame" is "not white", it means you consider Jews to be sub-human?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
There's really no reason for you to continue to attempt to justify your ongoing attempts to minimise racial prejudice and discrimination against those of the minority Jewish ethnicity.
It's a shame you can't accept Jews count and shouldn't be persecuted like they are.
By remarkable serendipity, David Baddiel has just written an excellent book on this very subject. Might be the wrong kind of woke for some Labour members though!
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
No, other countries actions are quite relevant.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
It is quite likely that the group least likely to have photo ID are retired CDE voters.
Not that this justifies US style voter suppression attempts.
Why is asking for less proof of identity than required to get a mobile phone contract, voter suppression?
Or does the electoral system in Peru, for example, suppress the vote? Do German elections suppress the vote?
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
Leftist student radicalism at uni shocker. Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker. You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Wouldn't it be nice to know that every single vote cast in this country was legitimate? That's an enhancement to democracy, just as illegal voting is a dilution of it. Quite what business it is of US civil rights groups is also a mystery - perhaps they could try minding their own business, as they have quite enough to be getting on with over there.
Yes, indeed. And it would be even nicer if we knew that every single vote counted. Under the present system, most of them do not. They are either cast for losing candidates, or else used to build up uselessly large majorities.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Indeed. The Unionist parties are fully concentrating on preventing independence, which is fighting the symptoms rather than the disease. They are too afraid to even talk about the main underlying problem: devolution hasn't worked.
Poverty, drugs, education, health, all as bad or worse than pre-devo. All devolution has done is add terrible constitutional pressure on top.
Unionists need to find the courage to admit "devolve and forget" is a bust, and advocate for a Devolution 2.0 settlement that involves much greater involvement and oversight from HMG to, when necessary, prevent whichever wretchedly useless party is in power at Holyrood (because they always are) from making too big of a mess.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
Leftist student radicalism at uni shocker. Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker. You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Are JK Rowling or Germaine Greer Alt Right goons and bow tie reactionaries?
Entirely off topic, anyone one here have experience of buying vinyl online? I have a vg friend in the US who has a big birthday coming up, and opportunities for buying something nice on the high street and posting it to him are somewhat limited. I don't want to be reduced to the tedious option of ordering bottles of malt (Islay or otherwise) online in the states, apart from anything it costs twice as much. There are (naturally) US record sites but I'm guessing that there may be payment problems caused by the delivery address & country being different from the card details.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
According to the ONS, they are a religion/religious group, but not an ethnicity. And therefore excluded from the strict statistical definition of “ethnic minority”
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
I visit Scotland A LOT (probably more than most English PBers) and I have close friends and family living there. I simply don’t recognise this portrait. Scotland is not a ‘catastrophic disaster’. Yes it has problems but so does every country on earth, it is also prosperous and peaceful. Scotland is not a tartan Venezuela. It is bizarre that a Nat should make this surreal argument, but I suppose you have to, for the cause
So it's not a banana republic nor a failed one party state then. Big phews all round.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
To give that a vaguely serious answer Malcolm Scotland's problems are pretty similar to the north of England and some of the midlands. There was an excessive reliance on heavy industry and mining which has been lost and it has not been adequately replaced. We all suffer from the draw effect of London for talent, investment, infrastructure and critical mass which has sucked wealth and wealth producing opportunities southwards. We all need to think constructively about how to address that.
Some attempts, such as Silicon Glen, have had some success in the past. For a considerable time the money and tax generated by the North Sea hid a plethora of problems not just for the UK but for Scotland in particular. Lots of otherwise pretty unemployable guys in Dundee earned very good money on the rigs and in the fabrication yards. Unfortunately all too many of them are unemployed again now or forced to work further afield to earn the money.
But new thinking is needed. I am not seeing that in the Unionist parties but I am frankly not seeing it in the SNP either. Our political class has thought of nothing but constitutional matters for over 20 years. It really is time they did something more useful.
I also think it's a bad thing for people to define themselves by their demographics, but there we are.
Didn’t someone once say he wanted his kids to grow up in a world where they were judged by the content of their character, rather than by the colour of their skin?
It was a very profound comment at the time, and we would do very well as a society to think like that.
I found the half time interview with Nigel Owens as part of the rugby yesterday also suffered from that. The world best rugby ref, did they ask him much about that or what he thought about Welsh rugby or the new laws that are causing defining changes to the game....no, it was basically 10 minute interview all revolving around how him coming out as gay and with every question centred about as a gay person what do you think of.....not as the world best ref, what do you think of...
It reminds me of an interview the BBC did a few years ago with an Olympic swimming hopeful and for 20 mins every question was, as a black person, does this mean.....how does being black affect you as a swimmer....do you feel responsibility as one of only few black swimmers....in the end the guy got very pissed off and basically said look, I came to talk about swimming and how I am training for the Olympics.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
Leftist student radicalism at uni shocker. Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker. You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Are JK Rowling or Germaine Greer Alt Right goons and bow tie reactionaries?
They are now. This is how it works
- You redefine someone as a "reactionary" or a "bigot" - therefore no platforming them isn't actually no platforming
The Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens had a similar scheme - only full citizens where entitled to a trial. So all you needed to do was cross someone off the list of citizens.... And it was all good....
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Entirely off topic, anyone one here have experience of buying vinyl online? I have a vg friend in the US who has a big birthday coming up, and opportunities for buying something nice on the high street and posting it to him are somewhat limited. I don't want to be reduced to the tedious option of ordering bottles of malt (Islay or otherwise) online in the states, apart from anything it costs twice as much. There are (naturally) US record sites but I'm guessing that there may be payment problems caused by the delivery address & country being different from the card details.
PayPal has saved the day for me before when buying something in another country, for delivery there, if the company offers that option. It avoids the retailer having to care where you are.
I love Scots and the Scotland and they help make the UK what it is - disproportionately so. You've had a huge and positive influence on Britain, and we'd all be diminished if you left.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
I have often wondered, in the situation we now face, whether a Tory/Labour/LibDem “National Government” is workable if the numbers allowed it? E.g. Would their leaderships go for it, or even a “two of three with confidence and supply from others” deal.
You do have to assume that if there is ever again a unionist Scottish government, then Westminster (whoever was in power) would bust a gut to help it succeed.
Sarwar said not when standing for election. Of course if Labour turned out to be the larger party he just might think differently.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
It wasn't really 300 years. Scotland was very much tied into the Imperial economy, via shipbuilding, manufacturing in general etc. Yes, it had poverty but so did many other places. Yes, people were driven out of their homes in the Highlands and Islands but that had to do (post-the Clearances) with estate owners, many of whom were Scottish.
The real problems came post-the end of Empire because it also coincided with the UK losing its position in many of the industries that were based in Scotland. If your focus is the world, being far from London didn't really matter. When your primary focus becomes the UK, then it does.
It's also the same sort of problem that impacted many of the northern cities. Places like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle lost a lot of the industries that had defined them. At the same time, the growing centralisation of the UK post-World War 2 meant more and more economic, political etc was being sucked into London, which caused further consequences as it then diminished regional economies.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
Entirely off topic, anyone one here have experience of buying vinyl online? I have a vg friend in the US who has a big birthday coming up, and opportunities for buying something nice on the high street and posting it to him are somewhat limited. I don't want to be reduced to the tedious option of ordering bottles of malt (Islay or otherwise) online in the states, apart from anything it costs twice as much. There are (naturally) US record sites but I'm guessing that there may be payment problems caused by the delivery address & country being different from the card details.
There's a local store to me that bought my collection at a very fair price - they are real enthusiasts and I'm sure would point you in the right direction if they can't help:
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
If your mental image of "Bame" is "not white", it means you consider Jews to be sub-human?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
There's really no reason for you to continue to attempt to justify your ongoing attempts to minimise racial prejudice and discrimination against those of the minority Jewish ethnicity.
It's a shame you can't accept Jews count and shouldn't be persecuted like they are.
I'm a hardened antisemite who considers Jews to be less than human and fair game to be persecuted?
Bit OTT with the trolling today, Philip. How many coffees to this point?
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Won't it just be easier to put this warning in front of every show, because even the woke-est of shows will probably have offensive terms in 5-10 years....might as well just insert the card now and save the effort of later having to do it.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
No, other countries actions are quite relevant.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
It is quite likely that the group least likely to have photo ID are retired CDE voters.
Not that this justifies US style voter suppression attempts.
Why is asking for less proof of identity than required to get a mobile phone contract, voter suppression?
Or does the electoral system in Peru, for example, suppress the vote? Do German elections suppress the vote?
This is not the point IMO. Hence why my original post talked about "theory" versus what works in reality.
Confidence in a country's democracy is about more than simply security of the ballot. This is always the flaw IMO in the argument made whenever such measures are (genuinely) proposed. Requiring photo ID in this country will, like it or not, present obstacles in the way of those who are eligible to vote. That getting over those obstacles may be relatively easy, is IMO, not the point - they are still obstacles that some, indeed many, will decide not try to overcome.
Democracy is enhanced when as many of those who are eligible to participate opt to do so. Low turnout undermines democracy, because it creates potential for opponents to argue against its outcomes, citing the alleged lack of support of the non-participants, the "excluded".
If you are going to take measures that will reduce participation, then you need IMO to have good evidence of the need to do so. That evidence is woefully lacking in the UK. If it were not, i might feel differently.
My point about the difference with many other countries, is that in countries with national ID cards, requirement to produce said cards when voting represents no obstacle. Hence it creates no issues in relation to participation. That is not the case in the UK. We also know where it will lead. It will go further, as in the US. People will start saying - "it makes no sense that you need photo ID to vote in person, but not to vote by mail". So systems will move towards requiring some sort of photo iD for mail ballots. And so on.
It will all be justified in theory. But in practice I believe it will undermine confidence in the democratic process. It is a slippery slope.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Entirely off topic, anyone one here have experience of buying vinyl online? I have a vg friend in the US who has a big birthday coming up, and opportunities for buying something nice on the high street and posting it to him are somewhat limited. I don't want to be reduced to the tedious option of ordering bottles of malt (Islay or otherwise) online in the states, apart from anything it costs twice as much. There are (naturally) US record sites but I'm guessing that there may be payment problems caused by the delivery address & country being different from the card details.
Faced with a similar payment problem when trying to buy a wedding present for my nephew in New Zealand, I had an email exchange with the vendor, followed by a pre-arranged VoIP phone call to provide payment details which had not been accepted on their website.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
Leftist student radicalism at uni shocker. Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker. You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Are JK Rowling or Germaine Greer Alt Right goons and bow tie reactionaries?
They are now. This is how it works
- You redefine someone as a "reactionary" or a "bigot" - therefore no platforming them isn't actually no platforming
The Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens had a similar scheme - only full citizens where entitled to a trial. So all you needed to do was cross someone off the list of citizens.... And it was all good....
Yes, this is the thing that I don't think @kinabalu gets. There is no neutral "fact-checker" that determines whether you are reactionary or not. The definition is controlled by one segment, which is the "progressive" left.
Mrs Ed has the same thing. She voted for Trump so, according to the definition now, she is no longer Black but a "multi-cultural white". And, yes, that is exactly what the left is saying now to come up with an explanation as to why more Black and Hispanic people voted for Trump
ps interesting survey from McKinsey's showing how Black Americans were nearly catching up with white counterparts in job participation pre-pandemic but that has now collapsed. Guess under which administration the gap not only nearly closed but also where the trend significantly improved...?
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
If your mental image of "Bame" is "not white", it means you consider Jews to be sub-human?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
There's really no reason for you to continue to attempt to justify your ongoing attempts to minimise racial prejudice and discrimination against those of the minority Jewish ethnicity.
It's a shame you can't accept Jews count and shouldn't be persecuted like they are.
I'm a hardened antisemite who considers Jews to be less than human and fair game to be persecuted?
Bit OTT with the trolling today, Philip. How many coffees to this point?
They're you're words not mine. You're the one saying Jews don't count and excluding them was "close enough".
As for coffee I'm only on my fourth for today. Cutting back and drinking more water as I've got a pounding headache and sore chest, not sure if that's symptoms for the bastard bug or a coincidence. Got my own test booked online though it won't change my behaviour since we're self-isolating either way.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
Q is Questioning FYI, not what you seem to think it is.
For people who are uncertain about their sexuality and still 'discovering themself'.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
It's not about how everyone or anyone else "does" their democracy - it's how we do it.
I'm well aware we carry all sorts of identification and are required to produce it or reference it on numerous occasions but we do not have a "national" or "state" identity card which we are required to carry or produce on demand.
It's also about taking a person at their word - if I provide my name and address, why should I have to prove it in order to vote especially if I bring a polling card? If there were a genuine problem with widespread voter impersonation or fraud, I could understand it but there's no evidence of that.
It grates at a cultural level - it grates at the "why should I have to prove who I am and where I live in order to vote?" level.
Entirely off topic, anyone one here have experience of buying vinyl online? I have a vg friend in the US who has a big birthday coming up, and opportunities for buying something nice on the high street and posting it to him are somewhat limited. I don't want to be reduced to the tedious option of ordering bottles of malt (Islay or otherwise) online in the states, apart from anything it costs twice as much. There are (naturally) US record sites but I'm guessing that there may be payment problems caused by the delivery address & country being different from the card details.
PayPal has saved the day for me before when buying something in another country, for delivery there, if the company offers that option. It avoids the retailer having to care where you are.
Thanks, Paypal is a good thought. Just checked and the site I was looking at has it as an option.
Before this post is replaced by whatever unmitigated gem is coming next, are there any views about what the UK Govt should be doing wrt Salmond etc.
I guess that there will be some scenario planning happening, but what can they do if it goes against the existing Scottish Govt and they simply refuse to do anything, backed up by Holyrood.
The only power I am aware that the Minister has under the Scotland Act is to "direct" the Scottish Govt to take actions under some circumstances. And presumably that can all be taken through a months-long legal process.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
It isn’t just POC. Americans use the OC in almost every area of life, to a surreal degree.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
But the UK is offering free voter ID cards if you don't have any other sort of ID. You already have to actively go and register to vote in the UK to get on the list in the first place, so it isn't really any different.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
Why is it a means of disenfranchising eligible voters when an acceptable ID card is available easy and free of charge, as per Northern Ireland's decades old electoral scheme?
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
It isn’t just POC. Americans use the OC in almost every area of life, to a surreal degree.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
If there was widespread personation going on we would know about it. It is really a very difficult thing to do without it being exposed. Because there would be lots of people turning up at polling stations and trying to vote, but being denied because their ballot had already been cast.
Meanwhile if people were being able to assume others identities, safe in the knowledge that said people wouldn't vote, then frankly they would be able to impersonate them to get hold of the 'free voter ID cards' that will accompany this proposal.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
Q is Questioning FYI, not what you seem to think it is.
For people who are uncertain about their sexuality and still 'discovering themself'.
No is Queer or Questioning, and Queer is widely used term among some of the LGBTQ community.
LGBT -- meaning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- is a widely accepted initialism. However, a fifth letter is increasingly making its way into the line-up: Q.
USA TODAY Network talked with experts and individuals in the gay community about what the Q means, why it's used and who is saying it.
What does the 'Q' stand for?
Q can mean either 'questioning' or 'queer,' Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that lobbies for LGBT rights, told USA TODAY Network. Either interpretation is accepted, he said.
"Queer is anything that exists outside of the dominant narrative,"
Before this post is replaced by whatever unmitigated gem is coming next, are there any views about what the UK Govt should be doing wrt Salmond etc.
I guess that there will be some scenario planning happening, but what can they do if it goes against the existing Scottish Govt and they simply refuse to do anything, backed up by Holyrood.
The only power I am aware that the Minister has under the Scotland Act is to "direct" the Scottish Govt to take actions under some circumstances. And presumably that can all be taken through a months-long legal process.
Can I suggest that the right answer is “absolutely nothing because the Scots elect that Parliament and anyway they have another election in two months”?
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
Q is Questioning FYI, not what you seem to think it is.
For people who are uncertain about their sexuality and still 'discovering themself'.
There are (or used to be) 2 Qs, so you're both right (I think).
Anyway, after a worrying period of acronym proliferation, this has now stopped and almost everyone now agrees on LGBT, or LGBT+ if you really insist on maximum inclusivity.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
Why is it a means of disenfranchising eligible voters when an acceptable ID card is available easy and free of charge, as per Northern Ireland's decades old electoral scheme?
When, a few years back, they tightened up the NI system - chiefly by cross checking records - 100Ks of voters suffered existence failure.
I'm anti-Woke. I've already stopped using it now and instead I use "minority".
No doubt some White liberals think I'm a Nazi for that but they are cunts - so fuck them - and I'll laughably remind them that I was well ahead of the curve with their patronising bullshit when it inevitably changes soon, and it will.
Lesson: accept that some people get treated with a shittier stick because of how they look but treat them like an individual about it, and generally don't be a narcissistic virtue-signalling self-obsessed cunt.
I get what you say, but it's worth keeping in mind that individuals differ in how they want to be treated too. Some will be like the swimmer downthread who just want to talk about swimming and are impatient with skin colour even being mentioned. Others, perhaps with bad experiences, want to have some explicit recognition that there's an issue and we sympathise. Treating individuals as individuals does mean seeing how they feel too - it's not only about us.
A friend of West Indian background living in an all-white village is notably respectful of irrational fears and prejudices - he will cross the road if an elderly woman who he doesn't know is coming the other way, just in case she might find a large black man turning up in her neighbourhood alarming. His basic test of friends is whether they treat him naturally - he's not bothered how they put it, but he does use the word BAME in conversation himself. His view is that merely being colour-blind is good but not ideal, because it doesn't acknowledge likely genuine differences of background and experience, and people who make an effort to find out and understand are particularly appreciated.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
Q is Questioning FYI, not what you seem to think it is.
For people who are uncertain about their sexuality and still 'discovering themself'.
No is Queer or Questioning, and Queer is widely used term among some of the LGBTQ community.
LGBT -- meaning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- is a widely accepted initialism. However, a fifth letter is increasingly making its way into the line-up: Q.
USA TODAY Network talked with experts and individuals in the gay community about what the Q means, why it's used and who is saying it.
What does the 'Q' stand for?
Q can mean either 'questioning' or 'queer,' Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that lobbies for LGBT rights, told USA TODAY Network. Either interpretation is accepted, he said.
Is it? I was under the impression it was specifically questioning.
As for queer its one of those words that is being "reclaimed" and good for them. I think how you use it is what matters best, if its in a positive sense fair enough, but if as an insult then its out of order. Personally I wouldn't use it though.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
If it was a happening a lot you’d spot the odd turnout patterns.
Voter ID will cost a lot if done fairly (you issue ID to those who don’t have it) and achieve very little
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
I’m sorry, but I am offended by your use of the outdated term LGBTQ. The proper, modern phrase is LGBTQIAPK
Given that it includes anyone with a sexual kink, which is basically everyone, I love it. It’s the first term for minorities which applies to 100% of humanity.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
Easy enough in theory. I think you would be surprised how observant polling staff are in practice. And to do so on any sort of widespread organised scale such as would make a meaningful difference to any but the tightest electoral contests... Pretty difficult to keep hidden.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
The real question is if you are charged for it.
What problem is photo IDs for voting trying to solve?
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
If it was a happening a lot you’d spot the odd turnout patterns.
Voter ID will cost a lot if done fairly (you issue ID to those who don’t have it) and achieve very little
My understanding of the proposal is that it will be somewhat like the change over to photo driving licences - that you will be issued the voting ID as part of (re)-registering to vote.
I'm anti-Woke. I've already stopped using it now and instead I use "minority".
No doubt some White liberals think I'm a Nazi for that but they are cunts - so fuck them - and I'll laughably remind them that I was well ahead of the curve with their patronising bullshit when it inevitably changes soon, and it will.
Lesson: accept that some people get treated with a shittier stick because of how they look but treat them like an individual about it, and generally don't be a narcissistic virtue-signalling self-obsessed cunt.
I get what you say, but it's worth keeping in mind that individuals differ in how they want to be treated too. Some will be like the swimmer downthread who just want to talk about swimming and are impatient with skin colour even being mentioned. Others, perhaps with bad experiences, want to have some explicit recognition that there's an issue and we sympathise. Treating individuals as individuals does mean seeing how they feel too - it's not only about us.
A friend of West Indian background living in an all-white village is notably respectful of irrational fears and prejudices - he will cross the road if an elderly woman who he doesn't know is coming the other way, just in case she might find a large black man turning up in her neighbourhood alarming. His basic test of friends is whether they treat him naturally - he's not bothered how they put it, but he does use the word BAME in conversation himself. His view is that merely being colour-blind is good but not ideal, because it doesn't acknowledge likely genuine differences of background and experience, and people who make an effort to find out and understand are particularly appreciated.
Intriguing. Does your friend pronounce it ‘bayme’ or does he say the letters B A M E? I’ve heard both.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
I’m sorry, but I am offended by your use of the outdated term LGBTQ. The proper, modern phrase is LGBTQIAPK
Given that it includes anyone with a sexual kink, which is basically everyone, I love it. It’s the first term for minorities which applies to 100% of humanity.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
The real question is if you are charged for it.
What problem is photo IDs for voting trying to solve?
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Where you have requirements for fake photo ID, thriving markets in fake photo IDs soon follow...
Anyway, all this discussion is irrelevant to my original question..
ie. is there potential for a Tory rebellion on the issue, and if so how large might it be?
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
I’m sorry, but I am offended by your use of the outdated term LGBTQ. The proper, modern phrase is LGBTQIAPK
Given that it includes anyone with a sexual kink, which is basically everyone, I love it. It’s the first term for minorities which applies to 100% of humanity.
There are some great lyrics on this in new punk band NOFX song, F##k Euphemism, whose lead singer is a well known cross dresser / kinkster.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
I'm sure this argument has been made multiple times on here every time this topic comes up, but here goes anyway: how on earth are we supposed to know if there's widespread voting fraud if we don't have any checks in place to detect it?
Because if there was then a significant number of people would turn up to vote and be told they already had. As stated above there might be some issues with postal votes on the margins but that’s a different issue.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
If it was a happening a lot you’d spot the odd turnout patterns.
Voter ID will cost a lot if done fairly (you issue ID to those who don’t have it) and achieve very little
My understanding of the proposal is that it will be somewhat like the change over to photo driving licences - that you will be issued the voting ID as part of (re)-registering to vote.
Yup, and it will cost a lot to do that compared to the status quo. Are the benefits worth it? I doubt it. Like I say, I think it would end up being done fairly so as not to suppress voters; but it’s a waste of money.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
The real question is if you are charged for it.
What problem is photo IDs for voting trying to solve?
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Was the change to photo ID for driving licenses displacement activity? Was there evidence of widespread fraud before that was done?
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
But not CP. If you say POC you are enlightened, if you say CP you are a cancelled reactionary bigot.
Then you have terms like LGBTQ....The Q, that's a no no, but its in the acronym, but I actually don't know how that differs from the Ls or the Gs, and if somebody calls themselves a Q, can I use it?
I’m sorry, but I am offended by your use of the outdated term LGBTQ. The proper, modern phrase is LGBTQIAPK
Given that it includes anyone with a sexual kink, which is basically everyone, I love it. It’s the first term for minorities which applies to 100% of humanity.
It never crossed my mind that Jews were BAME, but now I think about it maybe they are? Do they think they are?
Also, when people fail to notice that you are an ethnic minority, isn't that a possible winning post for anti-racism? Rather than an example of racism?
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
The real question is if you are charged for it.
What problem is photo IDs for voting trying to solve?
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Was the change to photo ID for driving licenses displacement activity? Was there evidence of widespread fraud before that was done?
I don’t know. It may have been another waste of time, you’re right.
Easy enough to take the votes of your neighbours who you know are away or never vote. Or to come back in the last hour of voting and just read off a name that's still not crossed out. And to do that in multiple polling stations.
I'm not sure it's as easy as you say. If your neighbours are "away", they might well have organised a postal vote - how would you know?
Let's say you defraud three or four people out of their vote in the manner you describe - how does that affect the result? Almost certainly not at all - there aren't many Winchester-type results.
Again, there's no evidence anything like this happens on a meaningful scale. We'd hear more stories of people claiming their vote had been "stolen".
It never crossed my mind that Jews were BAME, but now I think about it maybe they are? Do they think they are?
Also, when people fail to notice that you are an ethnic minority, isn't that a possible winning post for anti-racism? Rather than an example of racism?
No, it isn't (although I can see how it might seem to be). See Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party thinking they could get away with it because Jews weren't a proper ethnic minority.
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
No they aren't and that's a ludicrous red herring.
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Why is it ludicrous to point out the voting system norms in virtually all democracies on the planet?
Unless we have national ID cards as per most other democracies, it is a means of disenfranchising eligible voters. Whether these are younger voters, minorities or retired CDE folk, doesn't matter. It is manipulating the electorate to solve a non existing problem.
A universal voting ID is fairly trivial to implement - given the alacrity with which various organisations issue their own photo ID.
The real question is if you are charged for it.
What problem is photo IDs for voting trying to solve?
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Was the change to photo ID for driving licenses displacement activity? Was there evidence of widespread fraud before that was done?
EU directive, according to this contemporary news report.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
Every single ‘approved term’ for BAMEs (Christ, it really is ugly, it makes me wince just writing it) has been superseded by a ‘more sensitive’ term, in time. I’m old enough to remember ‘Afro-caribbean’. And let’s not forget ‘coloured person’ was itself a politically correct replacement for earlier words.
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
So Bame goes in favour of something else. Then that goes and there's something else again. Language evolves. Sensitivities change. So what? This is not in my top 50 of things to be angry, concerned or irritated about on planet earth 2021. Racism, OTOH, is.
I genuinely do not get why people have those things in the reverse order and I think those who do ought to carry out a self-audit - a proper one - before they write too much on it.
Have you done that?
Serious question. I'm not trying to be an insinuating smarmball. Not this time.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
Every single ‘approved term’ for BAMEs (Christ, it really is ugly, it makes me wince just writing it) has been superseded by a ‘more sensitive’ term, in time. I’m old enough to remember ‘Afro-caribbean’. And let’s not forget ‘coloured person’ was itself a politically correct replacement for earlier words.
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
So Bame goes in favour of something else. Then that goes and there's something else again. Language evolves. Sensitivities change. So what? This is not in my top 50 of things to be angry, concerned or irritated about on planet earth 2021. Racism, OTOH, is.
I genuinely do not get why people have those things in the reverse order and I think those who do ought to carry out a self-audit - a proper one - before they write too much on it.
Have you done that?
Serious question. I'm not trying to be an insinuating smarmball. Not this time.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
Every single ‘approved term’ for BAMEs (Christ, it really is ugly, it makes me wince just writing it) has been superseded by a ‘more sensitive’ term, in time. I’m old enough to remember ‘Afro-caribbean’. And let’s not forget ‘coloured person’ was itself a politically correct replacement for earlier words.
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
So Bame goes in favour of something else. Then that goes and there's something else again. Language evolves. Sensitivities change. So what? This is not in my top 50 of things to be angry, concerned or irritated about on planet earth 2021. Racism, OTOH, is.
I genuinely do not get why people have those things in the reverse order and I think those who do ought to carry out a self-audit - a proper one - before they write too much on it.
Have you done that?
Serious question. I'm not trying to be an insinuating smarmball. Not this time.
Racism is.
Unless its racism against Jews.
Got it.
When will you stand up and say Jews count?
Says the nasty little troll for whom the Holocaust was just a statistic.
Ah, I see that second Guardian article has the new words already cued up
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
Isn't POC the new accepted term? If you watch much "woke" American media like Vox, that is the go to term they use, and what starts in America normally ends up here.
It isn’t just POC. Americans use the OC in almost every area of life, to a surreal degree.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
Every single ‘approved term’ for BAMEs (Christ, it really is ugly, it makes me wince just writing it) has been superseded by a ‘more sensitive’ term, in time. I’m old enough to remember ‘Afro-caribbean’. And let’s not forget ‘coloured person’ was itself a politically correct replacement for earlier words.
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
So Bame goes in favour of something else. Then that goes and there's something else again. Language evolves. Sensitivities change. So what? This is not in my top 50 of things to be angry, concerned or irritated about on planet earth 2021. Racism, OTOH, is.
I genuinely do not get why people have those things in the reverse order and I think those who do ought to carry out a self-audit - a proper one - before they write too much on it.
Have you done that?
Serious question. I'm not trying to be an insinuating smarmball. Not this time.
Racism is.
Unless its racism against Jews.
Got it.
When will you stand up and say Jews count?
Says the nasty little troll for whom the Holocaust was just a statistic.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
Leftist student radicalism at uni shocker. Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker. You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Are JK Rowling or Germaine Greer Alt Right goons and bow tie reactionaries?
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
David, have you been drinking the same Koolaid as HYFUD. When did Tories or Labour ever address economic issues in the past, and the diddy parties could not run a bath. The unionists have had 300 years and look at the catastrophic disaster they have made of it.
I visit Scotland A LOT (probably more than most English PBers) and I have close friends and family living there. I simply don’t recognise this portrait. Scotland is not a ‘catastrophic disaster’. Yes it has problems but so does every country on earth, it is also prosperous and peaceful. Scotland is not a tartan Venezuela. It is bizarre that a Nat should make this surreal argument, but I suppose you have to, for the cause
Only a few posts ago you said it was a sh1thole, raining all the time, people all dying from drugs etc etc , make up your mind.
Comments
Hence the interesting point that, in nearly every country that immigrants have come from, voting ID* is required.
*Those that allow actual elections, of course.
You do have to assume that if there is ever again a unionist Scottish government, then Westminster (whoever was in power) would bust a gut to help it succeed.
Not that this justifies US style voter suppression attempts.
I visit Scotland A LOT (probably more than most English PBers) and I have close friends and family living there. I simply don’t recognise this portrait. Scotland is not a ‘catastrophic disaster’. Yes it has problems but so does every country on earth, it is also prosperous and peaceful. Scotland is not a tartan Venezuela. It is bizarre that a Nat should make this surreal argument, but I suppose you have to, for the cause
Edit - Labour should put the likely cost on the wide of a bus, and suggest we spent it on the NHS instead.
https://twitter.com/WmCollinsBooks/status/1364288919462838273
Or does the electoral system in Peru, for example, suppress the vote? Do German elections suppress the vote?
Alt right goons and bow tie reactionaries inciting hatred all over the place shocker.
You pays your money and you takes your choice (of what to be more concerned about).
Poverty, drugs, education, health, all as bad or worse than pre-devo. All devolution has done is add terrible constitutional pressure on top.
Unionists need to find the courage to admit "devolve and forget" is a bust, and advocate for a Devolution 2.0 settlement that involves much greater involvement and oversight from HMG to, when necessary, prevent whichever wretchedly useless party is in power at Holyrood (because they always are) from making too big of a mess.
Big phews all round.
Some attempts, such as Silicon Glen, have had some success in the past. For a considerable time the money and tax generated by the North Sea hid a plethora of problems not just for the UK but for Scotland in particular. Lots of otherwise pretty unemployable guys in Dundee earned very good money on the rigs and in the fabrication yards. Unfortunately all too many of them are unemployed again now or forced to work further afield to earn the money.
But new thinking is needed. I am not seeing that in the Unionist parties but I am frankly not seeing it in the SNP either. Our political class has thought of nothing but constitutional matters for over 20 years. It really is time they did something more useful.
It reminds me of an interview the BBC did a few years ago with an Olympic swimming hopeful and for 20 mins every question was, as a black person, does this mean.....how does being black affect you as a swimmer....do you feel responsibility as one of only few black swimmers....in the end the guy got very pissed off and basically said look, I came to talk about swimming and how I am training for the Olympics.
- You redefine someone as a "reactionary" or a "bigot"
- therefore no platforming them isn't actually no platforming
The Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens had a similar scheme - only full citizens where entitled to a trial. So all you needed to do was cross someone off the list of citizens.... And it was all good....
The voter ID proposal is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nut. There may be a small issue around postal or proxy voting but there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud so that someone pretends to be me, knows my address and casts a vote in my name.
We also have polling cards and many voters bring those though of course there's no requirement.
Once again, show me the evidence there is widespread voter fraud through misrepresentation at polling stations. I accept there have been issues with postal votes but that wouldn't be resolved by this proposal which, if I were being cynical, seems like an attempt to re-define the electorate to the benefit of one party.
Please don't go.
The real problems came post-the end of Empire because it also coincided with the UK losing its position in many of the industries that were based in Scotland. If your focus is the world, being far from London didn't really matter. When your primary focus becomes the UK, then it does.
It's also the same sort of problem that impacted many of the northern cities. Places like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle lost a lot of the industries that had defined them. At the same time, the growing centralisation of the UK post-World War 2 meant more and more economic, political etc was being sucked into London, which caused further consequences as it then diminished regional economies.
“ethnically diverse communities” or possibly “diverse ethnic communities”
That will become EDCs in time. Then people will say that is patronising, and we will move on to another. And thus the angelic pin-dance continues
https://recordcorner.co.uk/
If you tell them I referred you that might help (or they might say "Who?").
Bit OTT with the trolling today, Philip. How many coffees to this point?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9309011/BBC-puts-offensive-language-warning-iPlayer-versions-classic-prison-sitcom-Porridge.html
Confidence in a country's democracy is about more than simply security of the ballot. This is always the flaw IMO in the argument made whenever such measures are (genuinely) proposed. Requiring photo ID in this country will, like it or not, present obstacles in the way of those who are eligible to vote. That getting over those obstacles may be relatively easy, is IMO, not the point - they are still obstacles that some, indeed many, will decide not try to overcome.
Democracy is enhanced when as many of those who are eligible to participate opt to do so. Low turnout undermines democracy, because it creates potential for opponents to argue against its outcomes, citing the alleged lack of support of the non-participants, the "excluded".
If you are going to take measures that will reduce participation, then you need IMO to have good evidence of the need to do so. That evidence is woefully lacking in the UK. If it were not, i might feel differently.
My point about the difference with many other countries, is that in countries with national ID cards, requirement to produce said cards when voting represents no obstacle. Hence it creates no issues in relation to participation. That is not the case in the UK. We also know where it will lead. It will go further, as in the US. People will start saying - "it makes no sense that you need photo ID to vote in person, but not to vote by mail". So systems will move towards requiring some sort of photo iD for mail ballots. And so on.
It will all be justified in theory. But in practice I believe it will undermine confidence in the democratic process. It is a slippery slope.
Mrs Ed has the same thing. She voted for Trump so, according to the definition now, she is no longer Black but a "multi-cultural white". And, yes, that is exactly what the left is saying now to come up with an explanation as to why more Black and Hispanic people voted for Trump
ps interesting survey from McKinsey's showing how Black Americans were nearly catching up with white counterparts in job participation pre-pandemic but that has now collapsed. Guess under which administration the gap not only nearly closed but also where the trend significantly improved...?
As for coffee I'm only on my fourth for today. Cutting back and drinking more water as I've got a pounding headache and sore chest, not sure if that's symptoms for the bastard bug or a coincidence. Got my own test booked online though it won't change my behaviour since we're self-isolating either way.
For people who are uncertain about their sexuality and still 'discovering themself'.
I'm well aware we carry all sorts of identification and are required to produce it or reference it on numerous occasions but we do not have a "national" or "state" identity card which we are required to carry or produce on demand.
It's also about taking a person at their word - if I provide my name and address, why should I have to prove it in order to vote especially if I bring a polling card? If there were a genuine problem with widespread voter impersonation or fraud, I could understand it but there's no evidence of that.
It grates at a cultural level - it grates at the "why should I have to prove who I am and where I live in order to vote?" level.
I guess that there will be some scenario planning happening, but what can they do if it goes against the existing Scottish Govt and they simply refuse to do anything, backed up by Holyrood.
The only power I am aware that the Minister has under the Scotland Act is to "direct" the Scottish Govt to take actions under some circumstances. And presumably that can all be taken through a months-long legal process.
Dentists of color
https://dentistry.vcu.edu/alumni/support/the-first-100-dentists-of-color/
Gardeners of color
https://www.arboretumfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/winter-2018-book-review.pdf
My favourite. Colorists of color. Seriously
https://maneaddicts.com/cicely-wagner-hair-color-artist-interview/
The real question is if you are charged for it.
Meanwhile if people were being able to assume others identities, safe in the knowledge that said people wouldn't vote, then frankly they would be able to impersonate them to get hold of the 'free voter ID cards' that will accompany this proposal.
LGBT -- meaning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- is a widely accepted initialism. However, a fifth letter is increasingly making its way into the line-up: Q.
USA TODAY Network talked with experts and individuals in the gay community about what the Q means, why it's used and who is saying it.
What does the 'Q' stand for?
Q can mean either 'questioning' or 'queer,' Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that lobbies for LGBT rights, told USA TODAY Network. Either interpretation is accepted, he said.
"Queer is anything that exists outside of the dominant narrative,"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/01/lgbtq-questioning-queer-meaning/26925563/
Exists outside the dominant narrative, what does that mean?
Anyway, after a worrying period of acronym proliferation, this has now stopped and almost everyone now agrees on LGBT, or LGBT+ if you really insist on maximum inclusivity.
A friend of West Indian background living in an all-white village is notably respectful of irrational fears and prejudices - he will cross the road if an elderly woman who he doesn't know is coming the other way, just in case she might find a large black man turning up in her neighbourhood alarming. His basic test of friends is whether they treat him naturally - he's not bothered how they put it, but he does use the word BAME in conversation himself. His view is that merely being colour-blind is good but not ideal, because it doesn't acknowledge likely genuine differences of background and experience, and people who make an effort to find out and understand are particularly appreciated.
As for queer its one of those words that is being "reclaimed" and good for them. I think how you use it is what matters best, if its in a positive sense fair enough, but if as an insult then its out of order. Personally I wouldn't use it though.
Voter ID will cost a lot if done fairly (you issue ID to those who don’t have it) and achieve very little
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lgbtqiapk-addiction
Given that it includes anyone with a sexual kink, which is basically everyone, I love it. It’s the first term for minorities which applies to 100% of humanity.
Like Boris’s multiple bridges to nowhere, it’s a displacement activity.
Anyway, all this discussion is irrelevant to my original question..
ie. is there potential for a Tory rebellion on the issue, and if so how large might it be?
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1365959662198272000?s=21
Also, when people fail to notice that you are an ethnic minority, isn't that a possible winning post for anti-racism? Rather than an example of racism?
NEW THREAD
It may have been another waste of time, you’re right.
Let's say you defraud three or four people out of their vote in the manner you describe - how does that affect the result? Almost certainly not at all - there aren't many Winchester-type results.
Again, there's no evidence anything like this happens on a meaningful scale. We'd hear more stories of people claiming their vote had been "stolen".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/137238.stm
I genuinely do not get why people have those things in the reverse order and I think those who do ought to carry out a self-audit - a proper one - before they write too much on it.
Have you done that?
Serious question. I'm not trying to be an insinuating smarmball. Not this time.
Unless its racism against Jews.
Got it.
When will you stand up and say Jews count?
Unfortunately, ceasing to do it does not make society perfect.