Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is this Trump’s legacy – Republican voters significantly less likely to follow COVID guidelines than

13567

Comments

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    If the pre-Easter school opening doesn't lead to an increase in cases, and we do have a bumper few weeks on the vaccination front, Johnson will have to be mightily tempted to bring forward a lot of restriction easing to before the elections.

    He'll receive a huge "Covid is over earlier than expected" bounce if he does.

    You'd be anticipating a Jacinda Ardern scale victory in those circumstances in English councils. London, Scotland, perhaps not so much.

    Any Corbyn loyalists in the shadow Cabinet who might resign and call for Starmer to go?

    A big "If" for the vaccination surge. Since the magic 15 million weekend it's been less than exciting.
    More vaccinations: coming soon.

    OTOH the decline in case rate has come to an abrupt halt. If it starts to go back up but the hospitalisations keep going down for at least another three weeks, then we'll find out whether the Government is prepared to stick to its original plan A of keeping the hospitals safe, or whether it's going to obsess over R and keep us all locked up until July or August whilst everyone gets the jab.

    I'm reasonably confident that the release from incarceration will proceed more-or-less according to schedule but there are no guarantees.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021

    HYUFD said:
    Is Rose so far ahead they have resorted to doing polling without him?
    Its the deep state lizard people trying to ensure he doesn't win.....
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    DougSeal said:
    They are the sort of amounts of product I only expect when Mrs U hasn't been to CostCo for a few months and says she is just popping down to stock up on a few items.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
    What is being sorted?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    Yes, heard about this ages ago. It's one of the numerous minor hassles of now being a "third country", but it was always clear that it would apply to us and everyone else outside the EU. Brexit supporters have always accepted that this sort of effect would happen, but believe that the freedom to set our own rules would make up for it.

    The argument about the NI Protocol is at heart the same thing. Either (1) NI is tied into EU rules and enforces them itself so doesn't need documentation (but then has to apply it to all GB exports to NI), or (2) it isn't (but then has to have the third country hassle in trade with Eire and other EU countries). An interim state where goods flowing through NI are mysteriously exempt from *anyone* checking if they're compliant doesn't, and realistically can't, exist.
    In practice, if the EU isn't satisfied with the way the UK is controlling the GB-NI border and thinks that this really matters, it's difficult to see how it doesn't eventually lead to the thing they were trying to avoid which is recognition of a special status for Ireland.
    .. which is I think what the government, inasmuch as it has any plan at all, is hoping. The trouble is that it shows immense bad faith on the part of the UK government, with our EU friends increasingly and understandably convinced that Boris never had any intention of sticking to what he formally agreed to. The result of that will be that we're not going to get the kind of light-touch, trust-based cooperation which would have smoothed over a lot of the frictions which are strangling UK (and especially NI) businesses. It is a lamentable state of affairs, with serious negative consequences for the UK.
    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DougSeal said:
    It was just under 3m a week a month ago, though a doubling from now is good.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    DougSeal said:
    They are the sort of amounts of product I only expect when Mrs U hasn't been to CostCo for a few months and says she is just popping down to stock up on a few items.
    Presumably these these volumes of vaccine are yet to go through the validation process though? Is that now the bottle neck again?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    DougSeal said:
    Rough calculation - the surge is advised to last for the next three weeks, so 12 million doses. Even if we assume that a quarter of that goes on second doses (which is still probably an overestimate at this stage of the game) then that leaves enough to get everyone down to around the age of 45 through first dose by Easter.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    It is not our club anymore...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    kle4 said:

    DougSeal said:
    It was just under 3m a week a month ago, though a doubling from now is good.
    That says over 35m in UK warehouses, so I don't see any reason why we can't go even faster over the next few weeks.
  • MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
    What is being sorted?
    The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.

    When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763

    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    Yes, heard about this ages ago. It's one of the numerous minor hassles of now being a "third country", but it was always clear that it would apply to us and everyone else outside the EU. Brexit supporters have always accepted that this sort of effect would happen, but believe that the freedom to set our own rules would make up for it.

    The argument about the NI Protocol is at heart the same thing. Either (1) NI is tied into EU rules and enforces them itself so doesn't need documentation (but then has to apply it to all GB exports to NI), or (2) it isn't (but then has to have the third country hassle in trade with Eire and other EU countries). An interim state where goods flowing through NI are mysteriously exempt from *anyone* checking if they're compliant doesn't, and realistically can't, exist.
    In practice, if the EU isn't satisfied with the way the UK is controlling the GB-NI border and thinks that this really matters, it's difficult to see how it doesn't eventually lead to the thing they were trying to avoid which is recognition of a special status for Ireland.
    .. which is I think what the government, inasmuch as it has any plan at all, is hoping. The trouble is that it shows immense bad faith on the part of the UK government, with our EU friends increasingly and understandably convinced that Boris never had any intention of sticking to what he formally agreed to. The result of that will be that we're not going to get the kind of light-touch, trust-based cooperation which would have smoothed over a lot of the frictions which are strangling UK (and especially NI) businesses. It is a lamentable state of affairs, with serious negative consequences for the UK.
    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760
    In fairness that sounds eminently practical and sensible (even if it not what was being said in December). It will be a relief when these issues become practical issues to be addressed instead of points in an endless Brexit civil war.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    edited March 2021
    DavidL said:

    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    Yes, heard about this ages ago. It's one of the numerous minor hassles of now being a "third country", but it was always clear that it would apply to us and everyone else outside the EU. Brexit supporters have always accepted that this sort of effect would happen, but believe that the freedom to set our own rules would make up for it.

    The argument about the NI Protocol is at heart the same thing. Either (1) NI is tied into EU rules and enforces them itself so doesn't need documentation (but then has to apply it to all GB exports to NI), or (2) it isn't (but then has to have the third country hassle in trade with Eire and other EU countries). An interim state where goods flowing through NI are mysteriously exempt from *anyone* checking if they're compliant doesn't, and realistically can't, exist.
    In practice, if the EU isn't satisfied with the way the UK is controlling the GB-NI border and thinks that this really matters, it's difficult to see how it doesn't eventually lead to the thing they were trying to avoid which is recognition of a special status for Ireland.
    .. which is I think what the government, inasmuch as it has any plan at all, is hoping. The trouble is that it shows immense bad faith on the part of the UK government, with our EU friends increasingly and understandably convinced that Boris never had any intention of sticking to what he formally agreed to. The result of that will be that we're not going to get the kind of light-touch, trust-based cooperation which would have smoothed over a lot of the frictions which are strangling UK (and especially NI) businesses. It is a lamentable state of affairs, with serious negative consequences for the UK.
    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760
    In fairness that sounds eminently practical and sensible (even if it not what was being said in December). It will be a relief when these issues become practical issues to be addressed instead of points in an endless Brexit civil war.
    That was from 2018 when the EU was rejecting the Chequers plan.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Will Bailey still be mayoral candidate by end of the week?

    Possibly not. His tweet really is something special, implicitly criticising the current Mayor for not keeping the streets safe for women. His answer is, of course, more police officers. Surely he's read that it's a police officer that's been arrested for suspected murder? Poor timing doesn't begin to describe the stupidity or insensitiveness.
    Politicising individual crimes (as opposed to the general crime rate) before the full facts are known, is highly tempting but usually foolish.
    Of a pattern with Bailey, mind.
    He's the worst type of political low life. He thinks he's spotted a bandwagon and has quickly tried to jump on it. His timing was so poor however that he has missed and now even his own supporters will be wincing with embarrassment.

    Khan was already a shoo-in for re-election. If Bailey is the only meaningful opposition, the contest is already over.
    Con central office should use this opportunity to ditch a clearly failing candidate to be honest.
    Bailey is alright, I have met him, he is likeable and had a tough backstory.

    No other Tory candidate would be doing much better, London is a strongly Labour city now.

    The only candidate who might have had a chance of beating Khan is Lord Sugar who has the name recognition, managerial experience and money to win
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Will Bailey still be mayoral candidate by end of the week?

    Possibly not. His tweet really is something special, implicitly criticising the current Mayor for not keeping the streets safe for women. His answer is, of course, more police officers. Surely he's read that it's a police officer that's been arrested for suspected murder? Poor timing doesn't begin to describe the stupidity or insensitiveness.
    Politicising individual crimes (as opposed to the general crime rate) before the full facts are known, is highly tempting but usually foolish.
    Of a pattern with Bailey, mind.
    He's the worst type of political low life. He thinks he's spotted a bandwagon and has quickly tried to jump on it. His timing was so poor however that he has missed and now even his own supporters will be wincing with embarrassment.

    Khan was already a shoo-in for re-election. If Bailey is the only meaningful opposition, the contest is already over.
    Con central office should use this opportunity to ditch a clearly failing candidate to be honest.
    Bailey is alright, I have met him, he is likeable and had a tough backstory.

    He’s trying to use the missing South London woman story against Khan and his record on crime, when she’s still missing and we don’t know whether alive or dead, and they’ve just arrested a serving policeman in connection. Which is pretty shabby politicking.
    If I lived in London I wouldn't be voting for Bailey which doesn't say much for his prospects. I would have voted for Rory. Now, I would probably just not bother (along with the majority of Londoners).
    So long as he didn’t do the weird thing with his tie again, I think an energetic burst of campaigning by Stewart, if backed up by Tory party central, would make Khan more than a little uncomfortable. He’s not listed on betfair though, while Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Saj Javid are!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763

    DavidL said:

    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    Yes, heard about this ages ago. It's one of the numerous minor hassles of now being a "third country", but it was always clear that it would apply to us and everyone else outside the EU. Brexit supporters have always accepted that this sort of effect would happen, but believe that the freedom to set our own rules would make up for it.

    The argument about the NI Protocol is at heart the same thing. Either (1) NI is tied into EU rules and enforces them itself so doesn't need documentation (but then has to apply it to all GB exports to NI), or (2) it isn't (but then has to have the third country hassle in trade with Eire and other EU countries). An interim state where goods flowing through NI are mysteriously exempt from *anyone* checking if they're compliant doesn't, and realistically can't, exist.
    In practice, if the EU isn't satisfied with the way the UK is controlling the GB-NI border and thinks that this really matters, it's difficult to see how it doesn't eventually lead to the thing they were trying to avoid which is recognition of a special status for Ireland.
    .. which is I think what the government, inasmuch as it has any plan at all, is hoping. The trouble is that it shows immense bad faith on the part of the UK government, with our EU friends increasingly and understandably convinced that Boris never had any intention of sticking to what he formally agreed to. The result of that will be that we're not going to get the kind of light-touch, trust-based cooperation which would have smoothed over a lot of the frictions which are strangling UK (and especially NI) businesses. It is a lamentable state of affairs, with serious negative consequences for the UK.
    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760
    In fairness that sounds eminently practical and sensible (even if it not what was being said in December). It will be a relief when these issues become practical issues to be addressed instead of points in an endless Brexit civil war.
    That was from 2018 when the EU was rejecting the Chequers plan.
    Ah. Well I'd like to think that is their position today. Silly me.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    RobD said:

    On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.

    Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Extra testing will be carried out in parts of Wandsworth, south-west London, after cases of a coronavirus variant of concern were identified.

    The variant first identified in South Africa - like the one found in Brazil - is not considered to be more dangerous than other strains
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited March 2021

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.

    The assumption that it is automatically racist is a type of conspiracy theory in my opinion.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    'Wokewatch' and a monologue from Brillo, haud me back.

    https://twitter.com/amolrajan/status/1369677163583135744?s=20
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.

    But the EU settled its differences with the US over the Airbus subsidies the very same week.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    moonshine said:

    What is it about our society that keeps breeding new generations of men who see it as their sport to abduct or rape or murder random women? Might be nice if this tiny tiny minority of men could not put fear into almost all the women I am friends with that a walk home that I would barely give second thought to could lead to their brutal end.

    I’m sure a great many of us here have at some point merrily walked alone in the dark in that area of south west London without much thought. It’s insufferably awful.
    I wouldn't try to walk anywhere alone in the dark unless it was an area that I felt confident was very safe (I know little town where I live is safe; I wouldn't dare anywhere in London.) Just because the nastiest, most publicised crimes typically befall women it doesn't mean that men don't come to grief as well. Blokes can feel invulnerable, but that is a dangerous illusion. Always take care of yourself.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    moonshine said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Will Bailey still be mayoral candidate by end of the week?

    Possibly not. His tweet really is something special, implicitly criticising the current Mayor for not keeping the streets safe for women. His answer is, of course, more police officers. Surely he's read that it's a police officer that's been arrested for suspected murder? Poor timing doesn't begin to describe the stupidity or insensitiveness.
    Politicising individual crimes (as opposed to the general crime rate) before the full facts are known, is highly tempting but usually foolish.
    Of a pattern with Bailey, mind.
    He's the worst type of political low life. He thinks he's spotted a bandwagon and has quickly tried to jump on it. His timing was so poor however that he has missed and now even his own supporters will be wincing with embarrassment.

    Khan was already a shoo-in for re-election. If Bailey is the only meaningful opposition, the contest is already over.
    Con central office should use this opportunity to ditch a clearly failing candidate to be honest.
    Bailey is alright, I have met him, he is likeable and had a tough backstory.

    No other Tory candidate would be doing much better, London is a strongly Labour city now.

    The only candidate who might have had a chance of beating Khan is Lord Sugar who has the name recognition, managerial experience and money to win
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Will Bailey still be mayoral candidate by end of the week?

    Possibly not. His tweet really is something special, implicitly criticising the current Mayor for not keeping the streets safe for women. His answer is, of course, more police officers. Surely he's read that it's a police officer that's been arrested for suspected murder? Poor timing doesn't begin to describe the stupidity or insensitiveness.
    Politicising individual crimes (as opposed to the general crime rate) before the full facts are known, is highly tempting but usually foolish.
    Of a pattern with Bailey, mind.
    He's the worst type of political low life. He thinks he's spotted a bandwagon and has quickly tried to jump on it. His timing was so poor however that he has missed and now even his own supporters will be wincing with embarrassment.

    Khan was already a shoo-in for re-election. If Bailey is the only meaningful opposition, the contest is already over.
    Con central office should use this opportunity to ditch a clearly failing candidate to be honest.
    Bailey is alright, I have met him, he is likeable and had a tough backstory.

    He’s trying to use the missing South London woman story against Khan and his record on crime, when she’s still missing and we don’t know whether alive or dead, and they’ve just arrested a serving policeman in connection. Which is pretty shabby politicking.
    If I lived in London I wouldn't be voting for Bailey which doesn't say much for his prospects. I would have voted for Rory. Now, I would probably just not bother (along with the majority of Londoners).
    So long as he didn’t do the weird thing with his tie again, I think an energetic burst of campaigning by Stewart, if backed up by Tory party central, would make Khan more than a little uncomfortable. He’s not listed on betfair though, while Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Saj Javid are!
    Rory was winning over Londoners by staying overnight with them one house at a time. He gave up when he found out that London was somewhat bigger than Penrith and someone lent him a calculator.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    'Wokewatch' and a monologue from Brillo, haud me back.

    rwitter.com/amolrajan/status/1369677163583135744?s=20

    When do they announce Piers Moron signing?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    RobD said:

    What is it about our society that keeps breeding new generations of men who see it as their sport to abduct or rape or murder random women? Might be nice if this tiny tiny minority of men could not put fear into almost all the women I am friends with that a walk home that I would barely give second thought to could lead to their brutal end.

    Nothing special about our society in that regard.
    Sadly true. Male violence against - and oppression of - women is a global issue. IMO one of the very biggest issues facing the world.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021
    I still can't work out how GB News and News UK are going to be financially viable. Sky News is much higher profile and get very small audiences, Boulton often gets sub 100k viewers.

    Remember when Murdoch owned Sky, all the political pressure was to ensure he didn't close it down, despite it always losing money.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    If the pre-Easter school opening doesn't lead to an increase in cases, and we do have a bumper few weeks on the vaccination front, Johnson will have to be mightily tempted to bring forward a lot of restriction easing to before the elections.

    He'll receive a huge "Covid is over earlier than expected" bounce if he does.

    You'd be anticipating a Jacinda Ardern scale victory in those circumstances in English councils. London, Scotland, perhaps not so much.

    Any Corbyn loyalists in the shadow Cabinet who might resign and call for Starmer to go?

    A big "If" for the vaccination surge. Since the magic 15 million weekend it's been less than exciting.
    More vaccinations: coming soon.

    OTOH the decline in case rate has come to an abrupt halt. If it starts to go back up but the hospitalisations keep going down for at least another three weeks, then we'll find out whether the Government is prepared to stick to its original plan A of keeping the hospitals safe, or whether it's going to obsess over R and keep us all locked up until July or August whilst everyone gets the jab.

    I'm reasonably confident that the release from incarceration will proceed more-or-less according to schedule but there are no guarantees.
    The case rate data is going to be all over the place for a week or two given the number of daily tests has just doubled.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    I still can't work out how GB News and News UK are going to be financially viable. Sky News is much higher profile and get very small audiences, Boulton often gets sub 100k viewers.

    Remember when Murdoch owned Sky, all the political pressure was to ensure he didn't close it down, despite it always losing money.

    The obvious route is to go down a subscription model and get people to pay. I don't think they will attract the advertising money they need.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    HYUFD said:
    It would be an excellent effort for Mandu Reid to get 4% across London for WEP. Luisa Porritt holding third just in front of Sian Berry but Khan is dominant and would win on the first ballot on those numbers.

    I suspect, given Labour's past problems with getting their vote out, there will be a need t count second preferences but that will be a formality

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.
  • glw said:

    RobD said:

    On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.

    Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
    I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.

    The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.

    He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.

    Tusk was vastly superior.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.

    Who and who?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    His view, as one half of a mixed race couple with children of three different hues, is that neither is racist.
    Some people invite us to view absolutely everything through a prism of race while at the same time insist we shouldn't even notice race. It is exhausting.
    My view is that it's no more racist to speculate on race of a child of a mixed-race couple than to speculate on the height of a child of a mixed-height couple.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763

    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.

    Wasn't he in the Coalition? Or was it Only Fools and Horses? Name definitely rings a bell from somewhere.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.

    The assumption that it is automatically racist is a type of conspiracy theory in my opinion.
    Why do you bet loads of people do it and most of them are not racist?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616

    kle4 said:

    DougSeal said:
    It was just under 3m a week a month ago, though a doubling from now is good.
    That says over 35m in UK warehouses, so I don't see any reason why we can't go even faster over the next few weeks.
    That is based on the same NHS England letter we have been looking at for a few days.

    Does someone read PB?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited March 2021
    IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
    But the EU settled its differences with the US over the Airbus subsidies the very same week.
    Amazing timing, isn't it? :smile:

    I wonder why the place was suddenly galvanised into action, and why it hadn't happened in all the previous years?

    If they sharpen up their act, it will be very pleasing and perhaps even good for the EU-27.

    I think one of the best things that seems to be coming out of the COVID Vaccination mess is that previously compliant EU Citizens are becoming quite stroppy. That sounds like an excellent thing to me for a more developed EU polity, which may not go into what I would like - which would be less "centralised EU" - but will be a move forward.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Apparently this is new guidance on talking about ethnicity. Main point is that BAME and PoC are both deemed exclusive of various minority groups (and possibly also US terms that are not well understood by UK populations outside of Twitter?). "Blacks" and "Mixed race" are also out as terms.
    https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/writing-about-ethnicity
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    'Wokewatch' and a monologue from Brillo, haud me back.

    rwitter.com/amolrajan/status/1369677163583135744?s=20

    When do they announce Piers Moron signing?
    FWIW, I don't think Piers Morgan got sacked per se for criticising St Meghan. Yes, ITV's CEO said she believed the blessed one but what do you expect the CEO of a company that has paid for the rights to the interview to say when she is asked whether she believes her "No, actually I think she's a liar and we conned the public"?

    The issue for ITV is that they have been vocal backers, for a few years, of mental health and the risks of suicide. It's a bit problematic therefore to have a presenter who says that someone who talks about her mental health is a liar. Personally, I don't believe MM but that doesn't matter, it's the perception for ITV of keeping him that it sends.

    It's also quite good for Piers Morgan to manufacture the row. It will do his profile amongst the right in the UK and (more importantly from a monetary standpoint) the US a huge amount of good. Outlets like the Daily Wire are willing to pay big bucks to hire people who have been victims of cancel culture

    The real interesting part would be if, for example, Ant and Dec said a similar thing. What the f**k would ITV do then?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.

    Who and who?
    Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    Have you never speculated, for example, on the hair colour of a child of a dark haired mother and ginger haired father?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited March 2021
    DavidL said:



    I think that is a little harsh Richard. There was hysteria at the time to get a deal, any deal and the government was under immense pressure to deliver. Deliver they did but the EU "solution" in respect of NI is a fantasy. It is a part of the UK and will be until they choose to vote otherwise. Restrictions on our internal SM are frankly absurd and should never have been agreed to but the hysteria needed to be met.

    I think that we have done the right thing in making it clear that we will not accept restrictions on our internal market. We never should have. I acknowledge that this doesn't do a lot for our credibility but we were where we were, largely due to the frighteningly appalling failure of Hammond and May to prepare for Brexit for 2 years (although her solution was better and the Commons should never have voted it down).

    Now it is up to the EU how to respond. We should make it crystal clear that there will be no customs posts on our side of the border and all checks (as well as VAT matters) will be dealt with away from the border. The EU have the right to put up Customs checks. I don't think that Ireland will want them to but that may not be determinative of the matter.

    In the interests of good neighborliness, we might want to share our experiences of trying to operate border posts in NI.

    There was no pressure to 'do a deal' at all, except in the mind of Boris and the fantasies of loonier Brexiteers. Every sane person who looked at the question pointed out that the timetable he had insisted on was utterly bonkers.

    And yes, of course, the NI protocol which Boris idiotically asked for (and told us was a triumph) was extremely bad, putting a border down the Irish Sea. Again, every sane person who looked at the question pointed this out, but Boris was interested only in his own career planning, not in the realities. Purely for career planning purposes, and completely cynically, he trashed the much more favourable NI protocol which Theresa May had very skilfully negotiated.

    It was Boris, and no-one else, who insisted on this mess. The UK is now unfortunately facing the consequences, which are dire.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    His view, as one half of a mixed race couple with children of three different hues, is that neither is racist.
    Some people invite us to view absolutely everything through a prism of race while at the same time insist we shouldn't even notice race. It is exhausting.
    My view is that it's no more racist to speculate on race of a child of a mixed-race couple than to speculate on the height of a child of a mixed-height couple.
    His penultimate paragraph, the first to mention the word "context", is the critical one. Markle was insinuating that the context used in her case was negative. Without more details, it's impossible to tell whether the remark was neutral, ill-advised, or hostile.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    Context is everything.

    It seems Harry was hurt, so where's the harm in saying sorry? Absent an apology, you have to assume there was malice involved. The Family does have one or two members who are thought to be a bit on the racist side. Weren't one or two a little disappointed with the outcome of WW2? It really does need to be beyond reproach in this matter so some energetic diplomacy to dampen suspicions would not have gone amiss.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014

    TimT said:

    Be interesting to know whether this sort of regulation was long in the planning (probably) or is an example of NTBs being erected spitefully and in bad faith.
    Yes, heard about this ages ago. It's one of the numerous minor hassles of now being a "third country", but it was always clear that it would apply to us and everyone else outside the EU. Brexit supporters have always accepted that this sort of effect would happen, but believe that the freedom to set our own rules would make up for it.

    The argument about the NI Protocol is at heart the same thing. Either (1) NI is tied into EU rules and enforces them itself so doesn't need documentation (but then has to apply it to all GB exports to NI), or (2) it isn't (but then has to have the third country hassle in trade with Eire and other EU countries). An interim state where goods flowing through NI are mysteriously exempt from *anyone* checking if they're compliant doesn't, and realistically can't, exist.
    In practice, if the EU isn't satisfied with the way the UK is controlling the GB-NI border and thinks that this really matters, it's difficult to see how it doesn't eventually lead to the thing they were trying to avoid which is recognition of a special status for Ireland.
    I think the reality is that is where things will have to head.

    There needs to be a special status for Ireland in the EU, and NI in the UK, at the same time because the issues that span the NI border need to be seen to be fairly apportioned to either party for both NI communities to buy into it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741

    Paradoxically, as the Tories get more popular, they seem to get less popular in London.

    Its not a huge surprise. London is very different to much of the more rural countryside that makes up the Tory vote. I think its why those in the London bubble found Brexit so hard to fathom. No one they knew voted to leave, so who did?
    Well, you say that but it's not actually true.

    The EU Referendum results across London are divergent and fascinating - big REMAIN wins in such diverse areas as Lambeth, Hackney, Ealing, Richmond, Wandsworth and Westminster. LEAVE won in places like Barking & Dagenham, Sutton, Hillingdon and Bexley.

    In my Borough, Newham, I thought REMAIN would win 60-40 - the final margin was 53-47.

    A lot of Londoners voted LEAVE and some notable concentrations - it's just lazy to assume all Londoners are pro-EU and voted REMAIN.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    His view, as one half of a mixed race couple with children of three different hues, is that neither is racist.
    Some people invite us to view absolutely everything through a prism of race while at the same time insist we shouldn't even notice race. It is exhausting.
    My view is that it's no more racist to speculate on race of a child of a mixed-race couple than to speculate on the height of a child of a mixed-height couple.
    You can't possibly say that. It could well be evidence of racism. You'd need to know the tone and context.

    And for every person who sees racism everywhere there are ten who unless it's utterly gross and writ large see nothing.

    There is far more unopposed racism in the world than false accusations of it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.

    But the EU settled its differences with the US over the Airbus subsidies the very same week.
    Following where the UK leads.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820


    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760

    I don't think that was bad faith. You have to remember that because of the Internal Market Bill and the long history, the EU has become increasingly distrustful of the UK, and therefore is increasingly reluctant to trust us to meet our obligations without formal controls . Yes, we should be de-dramatising the Irish Sea border, but that is the diametric opposite of what Lord Frost and Boris are doing: they are drama-queening it, most recently with their brain-dead unilateral action. That has torpedoed the Irish government's attempt to lobby quietly within the EU for technical solutions, extensions of the grace periods, and light-touch application of the rules.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    You are irredeemably woke.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    edited March 2021

    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.

    Who and who?
    Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
    I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.

    Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.

    When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    DavidL said:



    I think that is a little harsh Richard. There was hysteria at the time to get a deal, any deal and the government was under immense pressure to deliver. Deliver they did but the EU "solution" in respect of NI is a fantasy. It is a part of the UK and will be until they choose to vote otherwise. Restrictions on our internal SM are frankly absurd and should never have been agreed to but the hysteria needed to be met.

    I think that we have done the right thing in making it clear that we will not accept restrictions on our internal market. We never should have. I acknowledge that this doesn't do a lot for our credibility but we were where we were, largely due to the frighteningly appalling failure of Hammond and May to prepare for Brexit for 2 years (although her solution was better and the Commons should never have voted it down).

    Now it is up to the EU how to respond. We should make it crystal clear that there will be no customs posts on our side of the border and all checks (as well as VAT matters) will be dealt with away from the border. The EU have the right to put up Customs checks. I don't think that Ireland will want them to but that may not be determinative of the matter.

    In the interests of good neighborliness, we might want to share our experiences of trying to operate border posts in NI.

    There was no pressure to 'do a deal' at all, except in the mind of Boris and the fantasies of loonier Brexiteers. Every sane person who looked at the question pointed out that the timetable he had insisted on was utterly bonkers.

    And yes, of course, the NI protocol which Boris idiotically asked for (and told us was a triumph) was extremely bad, putting a border down the Irish Sea. Again, every sane person who looked at the question pointed this out, but Boris was interested only in his own career planning, not in the realities. Purely for career planning purposes, and completely cynically, he trashed the much more favourable NI protocol which Theresa May had very skilfully negotiated.

    It was Boris, and no-one else, who insisted on this mess. The UK is now unfortunately facing the consequences, which are dire.
    Nah you've lost all perspective.

    The UK is dealing with this well and with a straight bat. Yes we signed the NI Protocol but it is not on the EU how that gets implemented (which was the case with the backstop), it is on us to implement it. They want it implemented one way, we want it implemented another way.

    Well we are implementing it, just in the way we choose to interpret it. Precisely as France and many other nations have done for EU rules forever. Countries interpret rules how they choose to do so, then its up for negotiations if we interpret things differently.

    It must be a shock to the system after decades of the UK goldplating EU rules that we are doing the bare minimum here instead, but there's nothing unreasonable about the UK's attitudes and as a free and sovereign country that is on us. If the EU want us to change, they need to work with us to find a solution that works for us - not just for them.

    That is the beauty of what Boris negotiated and why it is far superior to the madness that was avoided of entering the backstop instead.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
    Some old duffer? In our 21st Century Royal Family? There may be a specific reason that Harry and his Father didn't talk to each other for ages.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763

    DavidL said:



    I think that is a little harsh Richard. There was hysteria at the time to get a deal, any deal and the government was under immense pressure to deliver. Deliver they did but the EU "solution" in respect of NI is a fantasy. It is a part of the UK and will be until they choose to vote otherwise. Restrictions on our internal SM are frankly absurd and should never have been agreed to but the hysteria needed to be met.

    I think that we have done the right thing in making it clear that we will not accept restrictions on our internal market. We never should have. I acknowledge that this doesn't do a lot for our credibility but we were where we were, largely due to the frighteningly appalling failure of Hammond and May to prepare for Brexit for 2 years (although her solution was better and the Commons should never have voted it down).

    Now it is up to the EU how to respond. We should make it crystal clear that there will be no customs posts on our side of the border and all checks (as well as VAT matters) will be dealt with away from the border. The EU have the right to put up Customs checks. I don't think that Ireland will want them to but that may not be determinative of the matter.

    In the interests of good neighborliness, we might want to share our experiences of trying to operate border posts in NI.

    There was no pressure to 'do a deal' at all, except in the mind of Boris and the fantasies of loonier Brexiteers. Every sane person who looked at the question pointed out that the timetable he had insisted on was utterly bonkers.

    And yes, of course, the NI protocol which Boris idiotically asked for (and told us was a triumph) was extremely bad, putting a border down the Irish Sea. Again, every sane person who looked at the question pointed this out, but Boris was interested only in his own career planning, not in the realities. Purely for career planning purposes, and completely cynically, he trashed the much more favourable NI protocol which Theresa May had very skilfully negotiated.

    It was Boris, and no-one else, who insisted on this mess. The UK is now unfortunately facing the consequences, which are dire.
    That's just rubbish Richard. It was the EU who insisted on the order that things were to be discussed and refused to discuss our future relationship until we had paid. It was the Treaty that set a deadline once we had served notice. It was the UK government who arsed around with the likes of David Davis and Hammond and refused to address the consequences of Brexit. It was the House of Commons who passed an opposition Act requiring Boris to write a letter seeking an extension of the time for negotiation. It was both parties that agreed a thin deal rather than having no deal.

    Do we really have to go back to the hysteria about planes not being allowed to fly, borders being closed, tariffs and the death of all our firstborn if we left without a deal? It's just dishonest to claim otherwise.

    Boris and Frost got a pretty lousy deal. It was for goods and not services. Why on earth was it in our interests to agree that? It had this fantasy that NI was legally going to stop being part of the UK. It had level playing field obligations that may not prove to be in our interests. But it was a deal and that is what remainers were screaming for. And life has gone on, despite some minor inconveniences.

  • Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    You are irredeemably woke.
    And you're a prat.

    As the parent of mixed race children you're sounding the bigots I've occasionally had to deal with.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
    We know nothing about what was said or the context. We know nothing about what was intended by it either.

    It could have been an innocently curious ("I wonder if in looks it will take after you or Meghan?") it could have been a bad taste joke ("Ha! But will it be ginger with dark skin? Weird!") or it could have been malicious and pregnant with meaning ("If it's too dark then that's not good for the bloodline.")

    We just don't know. And we don't even know if Harry heard what he think he heard either.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    You are irredeemably woke.
    I wouldn't dream of asking any of my friends who get married what colour do they expect their kids to be. Height of bad manners. I'd get a bunch of 5s.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
    We know nothing about what was said or the context. We know nothing about what was intended by it either.

    It could have been an innocently curious ("I wonder if in looks it will take after you or Meghan?") it could have been a bad taste joke ("Ha! But will it be ginger with dark skin? Weird!") or it could have been malicious and pregnant with meaning ("If it's too dark then that's not good for the bloodline.")

    We just don't know. And we don't even know if Harry heard what he think he heard either.
    Even the Sussexes give different accounts, according to today's Times...

    "Meghan said there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born”. There were, she said, “several conversations” about it with Harry, and an unnamed member of his family.

    Harry’s account differed slightly from from his wife’s. He only referred to one conversation, and said that it was “right at the beginning”, before they were married".

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-where-buckingham-palace-disagrees-with-the-duke-and-duchess-tllqz9hv8
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited March 2021

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
    What is being sorted?
    The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.

    When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
    To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.

    The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.

    Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.

    Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.

    I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.

    There's an explainer here:
    https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-boeing-wto-dispute-what-you-need-to-know/a-49442616
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Just to be clear, as I pointed out earlier today, those rules were changed in 2012 - 4 years before Harry even met Meghan - because Kate was pregnant with William's firstborn and HMQ wanted to update the Letters Patent to align with the forthcoming Succession Act 2013.

    The objection is that she didn't change them again just for Meghan and Harry in 2019, when she was pregnant, so she didn't take anything away from her. And Archie will become an HRH when Charles ascends anyway.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    There isn't necessarily anything racist about speculating what other people's children's skin colour might be. I bet loads of people do it and most of them aren't racists.
    I couldn't say if loads of people do it so wouldn't bet on it, or whether they're racist or not. I have friends, one a (white) Glasgow Catholic, the other with a Scottish mother and Hindu Indian dad. When they had their two kids 20-ish years ago, I wouldn't have speculated out loud on their skin colour in a million years. Perhaps I'm irredeemably woke but I don't even remember wondering inwardly about it.
    Have you never speculated, for example, on the hair colour of a child of a dark haired mother and ginger haired father?
    Not that I can recall but I can think of situations when to do so out loud might be seen as inappropriate.

    Sorry to continue with anecdotal friends stuff, but a very good (possibly my best) friend, a big, pale, fair haired Scot, married a dark haired Jewish American (I'd add Princess but I fear that may no longer be an acceptable term). I guess I may have briefly wondered how their kids would look because we're close, but I would never have brought it up unless he had first. As it happens their two sons have turned out fair haired like their dad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    At the time of the marriage there was a lot of gushing nonsense about the Royal family once again reinventing itself by having a Prince marry someone of mixed race. Is it just possible that someone thought that the colour of their child was a matter of some importance in that context; that a child that was too white (and ginger) would not have the same impact and asked on that basis?

    Pretty insensitive if so, children are not symbols. But the context of this alleged question may not be what many have assumed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Gadfly said:

    LibDem PPB with Sir Ed "call me Ed" Davey.

    Who and who?
    Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
    I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.

    Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.

    When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
    I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.

    I've been wathing Line of Duty for the first time, and my takeaway is that all coppers are bastards, and even the ones who are trying to catch the bastards are compromised and utterly incompetent.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2021


    Accusations of bad faith could be made both ways.

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1015191244388085760

    I don't think that was bad faith. You have to remember that because of the Internal Market Bill and the long history, the EU has become increasingly distrustful of the UK, and therefore is increasingly reluctant to trust us to meet our obligations without formal controls . Yes, we should be de-dramatising the Irish Sea border, but that is the diametric opposite of what Lord Frost and Boris are doing: they are drama-queening it, most recently with their brain-dead unilateral action. That has torpedoed the Irish government's attempt to lobby quietly within the EU for technical solutions, extensions of the grace periods, and light-touch application of the rules.
    It takes two to tango.

    You have to remember that because of the backstop and the long history, the UK has become increasingly distrustful of the EU, and therefore is increasingly reluctant to agree formal controls to meet our obligations. Yes we should be de-dramatising the Irish Sea border which is exactly what Lord Frost and Boris are doing: they are refusing point blank to go over the top with brain-dead mad interpretations of the Protocols so de-escalating it instead with unilateral action. If the EU wants us to take any further steps that's on them to negotiation technical solutions and light-touch applications that suit us, not them.
  • MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    I went for Andrew.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited March 2021
    stodge said:

    Paradoxically, as the Tories get more popular, they seem to get less popular in London.

    Its not a huge surprise. London is very different to much of the more rural countryside that makes up the Tory vote. I think its why those in the London bubble found Brexit so hard to fathom. No one they knew voted to leave, so who did?
    Well, you say that but it's not actually true.

    The EU Referendum results across London are divergent and fascinating - big REMAIN wins in such diverse areas as Lambeth, Hackney, Ealing, Richmond, Wandsworth and Westminster. LEAVE won in places like Barking & Dagenham, Sutton, Hillingdon and Bexley.

    In my Borough, Newham, I thought REMAIN would win 60-40 - the final margin was 53-47.

    A lot of Londoners voted LEAVE and some notable concentrations - it's just lazy to assume all Londoners are pro-EU and voted REMAIN.
    Inner London was overwhelmingly Remain and every single inner London borough voted Remain, the only areas which went Leave were in outer London and most bordered Leave voting Kent and Essex eg Bexley, Barking and Havering. Newham is also outer London not inner London.

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    stodge said:

    Paradoxically, as the Tories get more popular, they seem to get less popular in London.

    Its not a huge surprise. London is very different to much of the more rural countryside that makes up the Tory vote. I think its why those in the London bubble found Brexit so hard to fathom. No one they knew voted to leave, so who did?
    Well, you say that but it's not actually true.

    The EU Referendum results across London are divergent and fascinating - big REMAIN wins in such diverse areas as Lambeth, Hackney, Ealing, Richmond, Wandsworth and Westminster. LEAVE won in places like Barking & Dagenham, Sutton, Hillingdon and Bexley.

    In my Borough, Newham, I thought REMAIN would win 60-40 - the final margin was 53-47.

    A lot of Londoners voted LEAVE and some notable concentrations - it's just lazy to assume all Londoners are pro-EU and voted REMAIN.
    London lost 700,000 inhabitants in 2020, how does that change the game, if at all?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.

    Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
    I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.

    The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.

    He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.

    Tusk was vastly superior.
    Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.

    Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    I went for Andrew.
    Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
  • On topic, I'm surprised just how anti science the GOP has become.

    The reality of it is they keep on doing stuff that harms them, not using mail in votes which may have cost Trump the election.

    Now there's not taking the vaccine, which might mean fewer GOP voters in future elections.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,086
    MrEd said:

    I still can't work out how GB News and News UK are going to be financially viable. Sky News is much higher profile and get very small audiences, Boulton often gets sub 100k viewers.

    Remember when Murdoch owned Sky, all the political pressure was to ensure he didn't close it down, despite it always losing money.

    The obvious route is to go down a subscription model and get people to pay. I don't think they will attract the advertising money they need.
    Presumably, it isn't there to make a profit. It will be a fairly cheap way for squillionaires to project their world view, and a nice payday for Brillo, Moron et al.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    It was most likely Princess Michael but there are worse remarks than asking how dark a mixed race baby would be, even if they probably shouldn't have said it
  • kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    I went for Andrew.
    Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
    I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    At the time of the marriage there was a lot of gushing nonsense about the Royal family once again reinventing itself by having a Prince marry someone of mixed race. Is it just possible that someone thought that the colour of their child was a matter of some importance in that context; that a child that was too white (and ginger) would not have the same impact and asked on that basis?

    Pretty insensitive if so, children are not symbols. But the context of this alleged question may not be what many have assumed.

    Without knowing who it was and precisely was was said it's impossible be clear whether this was an issue of concern/speculation/worry/insensitivity etc and thus what the motivation was and how stupid/racist it was.

    It's why it will come out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    I went for Andrew.
    Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
    I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
    Probably trying to be like his dad.
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    edited March 2021
    Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.

    It’s all very simple.

    Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.

    Life is fking unfair for the spare.

    If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. It’s all rather sad.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MrEd said:

    'Wokewatch' and a monologue from Brillo, haud me back.

    rwitter.com/amolrajan/status/1369677163583135744?s=20

    When do they announce Piers Moron signing?
    FWIW, I don't think Piers Morgan got sacked per se for criticising St Meghan. Yes, ITV's CEO said she believed the blessed one but what do you expect the CEO of a company that has paid for the rights to the interview to say when she is asked whether she believes her "No, actually I think she's a liar and we conned the public"?

    The issue for ITV is that they have been vocal backers, for a few years, of mental health and the risks of suicide. It's a bit problematic therefore to have a presenter who says that someone who talks about her mental health is a liar. Personally, I don't believe MM but that doesn't matter, it's the perception for ITV of keeping him that it sends.

    It's also quite good for Piers Morgan to manufacture the row. It will do his profile amongst the right in the UK and (more importantly from a monetary standpoint) the US a huge amount of good. Outlets like the Daily Wire are willing to pay big bucks to hire people who have been victims of cancel culture

    The real interesting part would be if, for example, Ant and Dec said a similar thing. What the f**k would ITV do then?
    Well said, though Ant and Dec wouldn't be stupid enough to say that somebody was lying about mental health.

    And if they did stupidly say it, they would have taken the opportunity reportedly offered to Piers, to apologise.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
    We know nothing about what was said or the context. We know nothing about what was intended by it either.

    It could have been an innocently curious ("I wonder if in looks it will take after you or Meghan?") it could have been a bad taste joke ("Ha! But will it be ginger with dark skin? Weird!") or it could have been malicious and pregnant with meaning ("If it's too dark then that's not good for the bloodline.")

    We just don't know. And we don't even know if Harry heard what he think he heard either.
    Yes, and it's particularly wrong to make the allegation at all without being specific about what exactly was said, when, by whom, and in what context. It just hangs there - it doesn't have to be proved, and it cannot be disproved. Where's the justice in that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    ping said:

    Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.

    Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.

    Life is fking unfair for the spare.

    If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. Very sad.

    It also explains her intense bitterness to Kate and Harry falling out with his brother.

    You have to remember that William and Kate are also far more popular than they are.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
    His view, as one half of a mixed race couple with children of three different hues, is that neither is racist.
    Some people invite us to view absolutely everything through a prism of race while at the same time insist we shouldn't even notice race. It is exhausting.
    My view is that it's no more racist to speculate on race of a child of a mixed-race couple than to speculate on the height of a child of a mixed-height couple.
    You can't possibly say that. It could well be evidence of racism. You'd need to know the tone and context.

    And for every person who sees racism everywhere there are ten who unless it's utterly gross and writ large see nothing.

    There is far more unopposed racism in the world than false accusations of it.
    Well yes. Context is everything.
    I was talking in general terrms, but to return to the specific, I should make clear that I haven't seem the interview with H&M, just heard some of the quotes from it.
    And all I heard was 'some members of the family speculated on the akin colour of the baby'.
    This was presented as if it was evidence of racism. And it just isn't.
    Now there may be racism. And there may be far more context which could demonstrate it, which may or may not have been revealed. But this, on its own, is not racism.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.

    Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
    They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand

    As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
    They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
    Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
    There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
    I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.

    For 15 years ... nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

    UK leaves EU.

    2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
    What is being sorted?
    The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.

    When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
    To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.

    The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.

    Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.

    Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.

    I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.

    There's an explainer here:
    https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-boeing-wto-dispute-what-you-need-to-know/a-49442616
    Precisely. Its hilarious to think that after 16 years of this dispute, years after these tariffs, it was clearly Liz Truss who broke the logjam (with a unilateral action on New Year's Day) and the EU scampered after us a few days after we broke the logjam.

    Now the likes of Rochdale are insisting that this is meaningless because of the fact that the EU led where we followed a few days later, so it would have been the same had we remained. That's silly. There's no evidence the EU were instrumental in getting the breakthrough as witnessed by the fact their breakthrough followed ours rather than the other way around.

    Without us being first movers on New Year's Day its entirely probable the EU and USA would still be staring at each other arrogantly waiting for the other to be first to blink.

    If we have the freedom to act, and the EU have the freedom to follow where we lead, then that's progress.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555

    On topic, I'm surprised just how anti science the GOP has become.

    The reality of it is they keep on doing stuff that harms them, not using mail in votes which may have cost Trump the election.

    Now there's not taking the vaccine, which might mean fewer GOP voters in future elections.

    One of the reasons why those who call Boris "Britain's Trump" are completely wrong.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    DavidL said:

    At the time of the marriage there was a lot of gushing nonsense about the Royal family once again reinventing itself by having a Prince marry someone of mixed race. Is it just possible that someone thought that the colour of their child was a matter of some importance in that context; that a child that was too white (and ginger) would not have the same impact and asked on that basis?

    Pretty insensitive if so, children are not symbols. But the context of this alleged question may not be what many have assumed.

    Yes, very much so.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183
    Endillion said:

    Apparently this is new guidance on talking about ethnicity. Main point is that BAME and PoC are both deemed exclusive of various minority groups (and possibly also US terms that are not well understood by UK populations outside of Twitter?). "Blacks" and "Mixed race" are also out as terms.
    https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/writing-about-ethnicity

    For. Fuck's. Sake.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited March 2021
    Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    ping said:

    Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.

    It’s all very simple.

    Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.

    Life is fking unfair for the spare.

    If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. Very sad.

    Meghan did mention that she was surprised about members of the family having to curtsey to the Queen.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    I think the lack of details around the skin colour comment are pretty cynical. They know that everyone else will speculate on who said it and the nature of the comment. Let their imaginations run riot.

    The flip side, of course, is that the Monarchy don't have to fill in the blanks. I think they got the statement about right. They don't need to engage any further.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.

    Strawman argument from you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited March 2021

    ping said:

    Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.

    Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.

    Life is fking unfair for the spare.

    If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. Very sad.

    It also explains her intense bitterness to Kate and Harry falling out with his brother.

    You have to remember that William and Kate are also far more popular than they are.
    In the UK that is certainly still the case, hence the Sussexes have moved to where their brand is strongest ie California

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1369432451223859200?s=20
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Anil Bhoyrul
    Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour your child will have?"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-it-racist-to-wonder-what-skin-colour-your-child-will-have-

    It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
    Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
    Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
    It was most likely Princess Michael but there are worse remarks than asking how dark a mixed race baby would be, even if they probably shouldn't have said it
    Not sure why you're blaming this on the first transgender member of the Royal Family...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.

    Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.

    Life is fking unfair for the spare.

    If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. Very sad.

    It also explains her intense bitterness to Kate and Harry falling out with his brother.

    You have to remember that William and Kate are also far more popular than they are.
    In the UK that is certainly still the case

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1369432451223859200?s=20
    Prince Harry is more popular than the man who is supposed to be our next King. 🤦‍♂️
This discussion has been closed.