Fox were RIGHT to call AZ, as they called the winner accurately. That they beat all the other networks to it was an added feather in the caps of their decision deskmen.
One thing to watch in the US is that apparently the (liberal) media has been reporting on the Derek Chauvin trial in such a way as to portray it as a 'slam dunk' but when you read the closer details, it isn't such a slam dunk.
Therefore if he's acquitted it's going to come as quite a surprise. There's a real danger of serious rioting in that eventuality.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Absolutely!
Boris has defeated those that came before him - including May and Cameron incidentally - by knowing that full well.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
That’s the one. It appears that the USA has a predominantly a serious *violence* problem.
It’s not surprising that police are nervous at traffic stops when this sort of thing happens.
Personally, I’d start by admitting the “war on drugs” has failed. It failed decades ago.
Yes, but being a cop remains a relatively safe job in the US. The vast majority of police live to retire and take their pensions. Law enforcement isn't even in the top ten categories for occupational deaths. Only slightly over a quarter of American police officers have ever fired their gun in the line of duty.
A big part of the problem is that the police have bought into the "thin blue line" mentality. That they are the unthanked, unloved and stretched to breaking point bulwark between civilization and anarchy. It simply isn't true, but far too many of them act as if it is, and treat encounters as if they are potentially life-threatening to an extent that simply is not justified by the facts.
My understanding is that the officer in question was an officer Gutierrez, which again suggests the whole saga may be more complex than the prevailing narrative might suggest.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
I see the BBC is pissing off the remaining and ever-reducing band of licence fee payers by STILL not having announced when the Master Chef Final will be aired.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
No one is disagreeing with that but it does give truth to the adage that such movements start off as a cause, then become a business and finally a scam
No - all revolutionaries become the establishment.
I laughed out loud when I read Harry Hopkins reaction to Stalins arrival at conference. Hopkins, like a lot of ultra lefties in his day had nurtured the idea that Russia was the moral equal of the British empire etc.
Then Stalin rolled up with a division of NKVD, bodyguards and host of servants.
Churchill rocked up with a bodyguard, a doctor and a bloke to carry his briefcase (or something like that).
Poor Harry H - you could practically *hear* the tears....
This is a theme of a novel I read as a teenager called Animal Farm. Forgotten who the author is now. Quite astute anyway, if a bit stilted and 1D. The same message is perhaps better conveyed by The Who's "We Don't Get Fooled Again". Was Pete Townshend (who wrote the song) influenced by that same novel? Did he read it, as I did, as an impressionable young boy, and years later, as I didn't, use it to pen a towering rock anthem?
Central Manchester is heaving, some plebs started queueing at 4am for Primark.
Kind of shits all over the idea that people are fearful of going out of their own front doors and will need to be coaxed out with vaccine passports and other such rubbish. It's almost as if the government is simply using COVID as an excuse to push unpopular policies.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
Probably depends whether @HYUFD is leading the tank battalions or not.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
Central Manchester is heaving, some plebs started queueing at 4am for Primark.
Kind of shits all over the idea that people are fearful of going out of their own front doors and will need to be coaxed out with vaccine passports and other such rubbish. It's almost as if the government is simply using COVID as an excuse to push unpopular policies.
Quote from the BBC from a youngster queuing for Primark: "We have missed out on everything so we need to experience our summer to be honest."
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
We are talking about a problem with violence in the US, both directed at and by police officers - people of all races, as both agressors and victims.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
What would be the equivalent change and contradictions (ie some want, some don't want) that we can look at for a "normal" comparison.
Central Manchester is heaving, some plebs started queueing at 4am for Primark.
Kind of shits all over the idea that people are fearful of going out of their own front doors and will need to be coaxed out with vaccine passports and other such rubbish. It's almost as if the government is simply using COVID as an excuse to push unpopular policies.
Based on today, I suspect the May 17th change will be more like the June 21st change, not de jure but de facto.
There were a couple of antivaxxers near the Arndale, I heard one person tell them to fuck off, which cheered me up.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
And the shoes. Don't forget the shoes. Amazing tolerance.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
Aye, I'm the grandchild of immigrants too. Britain is undoubtedly less racist than most countries in the world.
That doesn't mean there isn't more work to do though — there's always room for improvement.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
What would be the equivalent change and contradictions (ie some want, some don't want) that we can look at for a "normal" comparison.
I think in Britain today it is now normal that we resolve our differences with ballots not bullets.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
We are talking about a problem with violence in the US, both directed at and by police officers - people of all races, as both agressors and victims.
Definitely. "Black lives matter" is just short hand for "Black lives matter as much as white lives and latino lives, etc". That's what some people don't seem to grasp.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
I've followed PB for a while, just not posting until recently. TSE doesnt do the baiting stuff at all. There are many who are disappointed that the report doesnt show the UK is some evil oppressive fascist state brimming over with pr.ejudice etc. But those people generally arent posting on here. Plenty of those numpties on twitter
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
Well in that case you won't mind if a white person makes a legitimate criticism of the US Democratic party's record in government in the areas where it is dominant.
That record is not good, and those purporting to stand up for certain communities have legitimate questions to answer.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
And the shoes. Don't forget the shoes. Amazing tolerance.
Someone needs to get on the blower to Priti to bring @TheScreamingEagles 's shoes to her attention, to be honest.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
And the shoes. Don't forget the shoes. Amazing tolerance.
Someone needs to get on the blower to Priti to bring @TheScreamingEagles 's shoes to her attention, to be honest.
Seems weird for Starmer, formerly a republican but now won't confirm what he thinks, to say that "support for the monarchy has never wavered" in Britain.
Speaking as a republican myself I think its perfectly possible to give praise to Prince Philip in his own right for his service without saying that.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
One thing to watch in the US is that apparently the (liberal) media has been reporting on the Derek Chauvin trial in such a way as to portray it as a 'slam dunk' but when you read the closer details, it isn't such a slam dunk.
Therefore if he's acquitted it's going to come as quite a surprise. There's a real danger of serious rioting in that eventuality.
Listening to Megyn Kelly podcast. She's very good. had some pretty senior defence attorneys on talking through what is needed for each of the verdicts. It does sound like bar necessary for a successful second degree murder charge might not be met. They'll be rioting whatever happens.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
What would be the equivalent change and contradictions (ie some want, some don't want) that we can look at for a "normal" comparison.
I think in Britain today it is now normal that we resolve our differences with ballots not bullets.
Do you disagree?
I agree absolutely. I am just asking for a comparison in terms of a separation (or not) of a union where we can assess what "today"'s appropriate level of violence would be.
I mean we have one sort of ongoing and in the not too distant past. Wasn't/isn't 100% peaceful I have to tell you.
Central Manchester is heaving, some plebs started queueing at 4am for Primark.
Kind of shits all over the idea that people are fearful of going out of their own front doors and will need to be coaxed out with vaccine passports and other such rubbish. It's almost as if the government is simply using COVID as an excuse to push unpopular policies.
Wait, were vaccine passports designed to give people confidence to resume daily life? I thought it wad the opposite: give people an obstacle to going back out to act as a brake on normal resumption, to give policymakers a better chance of reacting in time if we see a massive spike in hospital admissions over the next few months.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
What would be the equivalent change and contradictions (ie some want, some don't want) that we can look at for a "normal" comparison.
I think in Britain today it is now normal that we resolve our differences with ballots not bullets.
Do you disagree?
I agree absolutely. I am just asking for a comparison in terms of a separation (or not) of a union where we can assess what "today"'s appropriate level of violence would be.
I mean we have one sort of ongoing and in the not too distant past. Wasn't/isn't 100% peaceful I have to tell you.
Brexit was peaceful. There was no war of independence.
There was some criminality, there is always criminality, but there was no war.
Can't help but think Harry's tribute "master of the barbecue, legend of banter, and cheeky right 'til the end" might have sounded better when said by a 23 year old in 2007 rather than a 36 year old man in 2021. At least he's probably not going to end up King I suppose.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
Then will be the time for your tears.
I well remember you highlighting this at the time.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
As it happens I’ve just had sight of an economic incentive proposal from Kansas City.
They value 300 jobs at $20m paid over 10 years on the form of tax deductions and offsets.
£500m guarantee upfront for 100 jobs is well off-market
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
No you're wrong.
Bear in mind that in the future students won't be studying British history, since Britain wouldn't exist anymore. People would be growing up as English or Scottish alone.
Lloyd George is remembered for what he achieved, what the Irish chose to do and what he signed with them is a minor footnote. Since Ireland is "them" now in history not "us" just as Scotland would be post-independence.
Scottish independence when it happens will be decades in the making, no longer a surprise but more an inevitability. There's a reason more and more people expect it to be a matter of when not if and you're terrified of another referendum.
I agree with the last bit, but the earlier bits didn't work out so well for Lord North
Lord North is a failure not because he lost the 13 Colonies, but he did so after trying to suppress them with the Intolerable Acts and a Civil War he lost etc
Lloyd George let Ireland go peacefully. Attlee let India go peacefully. Lord North tried to suppress the Americans.
Lloyd George and Attlee are remembered positively, Lord North is not.
Eden is like Lord North in that he tried to suppress the Egyptians in Suez, failed, and so is remembered terribly.
Going down the Lord North/Eden route of trying to suppress the Scots will not be positively remembered. If they choose to go then letting them go peacefully will be.
Lloyd George did not let Ireland go peacefully. What nonsense is that?
He tried and failed to use force to suppress the IRA. Remember Bloody Sunday was used to describe a day of infamy for the British in Dublin before Derry some decades later.
OK "relatively" peacefully.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
So that would be about the right level of violence for Scottish independence?
No it would be right to avoid violence.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
What would be the equivalent change and contradictions (ie some want, some don't want) that we can look at for a "normal" comparison.
I think in Britain today it is now normal that we resolve our differences with ballots not bullets.
Do you disagree?
I agree absolutely. I am just asking for a comparison in terms of a separation (or not) of a union where we can assess what "today"'s appropriate level of violence would be.
I mean we have one sort of ongoing and in the not too distant past. Wasn't/isn't 100% peaceful I have to tell you.
Brexit was peaceful. There was no war of independence.
There was some criminality, there is always criminality, but there was no war.
As a poster on here pointed out recently that is comparing apples and chalk. The UK was and is a sovereign nation exiting a trading organisation which had political aims in its constitution. Scotland is not a sovereign nation and would be seeking to become one.
One thing to watch in the US is that apparently the (liberal) media has been reporting on the Derek Chauvin trial in such a way as to portray it as a 'slam dunk' but when you read the closer details, it isn't such a slam dunk.
Therefore if he's acquitted it's going to come as quite a surprise. There's a real danger of serious rioting in that eventuality.
Do you have a link to anything I can read? I’d certainly formed the impression it was cut and dried, but I’ve obviously only seen a small amount of British coverage. You’re right - if he is seen to get off.....
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
Seems weird for Starmer, formerly a republican but now won't confirm what he thinks, to say that "support for the monarchy has never wavered" in Britain.
Speaking as a republican myself I think its perfectly possible to give praise to Prince Philip in his own right for his service without saying that.
Unlike the republican Corbyn, Starmer has now said he backs keeping a monarchy with reforms.
No wonder given 64% of LDs, 58% of Remainers, 50% of Scots and 48% of Labour voters back keeping the monarchy, let alone 85% of Tory voters and 78% of Leave voters
This really is the stupidest idea since Gavin Williamson last spoke.
Scrapping the term "wickets" promises to completely overhaul the way in which scoring is described. It means a team could be described as having 75 runs off 32 balls for two outs instead of 75 for two wickets off 32 balls. A bowler can still be said to have taken a wicket but could be described as claiming 15 "outs" off 120 balls in the competition so far.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
And the shoes. Don't forget the shoes. Amazing tolerance.
Someone needs to get on the blower to Priti to bring @TheScreamingEagles 's shoes to her attention, to be honest.
Wearing loud shoes in a built up area?
Constable Savage to the Green courtesy phone. Constable Savage to the Green courtesy phone, please
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
Then will be the time for your tears.
I well remember you highlighting this at the time.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
As it happens I’ve just had sight of an economic incentive proposal from Kansas City.
They value 300 jobs at $20m paid over 10 years on the form of tax deductions and offsets.
£500m guarantee upfront for 100 jobs is well off-market
I suspect giving each of them £5m to start their own business would have done a hell of a lot more for the local economy.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
You're doing it here and proving my point exactly. 100% focus on the demerits (iyo) of those making the arguments. 0% focus on the arguments.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Central Manchester is heaving, some plebs started queueing at 4am for Primark.
Kind of shits all over the idea that people are fearful of going out of their own front doors and will need to be coaxed out with vaccine passports and other such rubbish. It's almost as if the government is simply using COVID as an excuse to push unpopular policies.
Wait, were vaccine passports designed to give people confidence to resume daily life? I thought it wad the opposite: give people an obstacle to going back out to act as a brake on normal resumption, to give policymakers a better chance of reacting in time if we see a massive spike in hospital admissions over the next few months.
The best reason that they have come up with so far - and I use the term 'best' very loosely here - is that they could remove social distancing for venues that insisted on the vaxport. Except of course these places will have been open for months before the bloody thing is operational and you can bet your last dollar that come the time a case surge model will be discovered that shows that social distancing can't be removed after all but hey ho we've launched the app and it cost billions so everyone better use it.
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
Then will be the time for your tears.
I well remember you highlighting this at the time.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
As it happens I’ve just had sight of an economic incentive proposal from Kansas City.
They value 300 jobs at $20m paid over 10 years on the form of tax deductions and offsets.
£500m guarantee upfront for 100 jobs is well off-market
I suspect giving each of them £5m to start their own business would have done a hell of a lot more for the local economy.
Ah, the Wastelands argument, again. Can I sell you a helicopter that looks like a cheap knock-off of a decent helicopter, but at 4 times the price?
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
You're doing it here and proving my point exactly. 100% focus on the demerits (iyo) of those making the arguments. 0% focus on the arguments.
Can you not at least make me work a bit? I come here for a workout.
Perhaps I can help. The analogy is Jeremy Corbyn speaking out against racism while being a filthy anti-semite. It slightly confuses the issue and invites charges of being a hypocritical dick.
Perhaps head to the gym as previously planned in order to clear your head. Probably a bit fuzzy right now. Seems so.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
Then will be the time for your tears.
I well remember you highlighting this at the time.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
As it happens I’ve just had sight of an economic incentive proposal from Kansas City.
They value 300 jobs at $20m paid over 10 years on the form of tax deductions and offsets.
£500m guarantee upfront for 100 jobs is well off-market
I suspect giving each of them £5m to start their own business would have done a hell of a lot more for the local economy.
Ah, the Wastelands argument, again. Can I sell you a helicopter that looks like a cheap knock-off of a decent helicopter, but at 4 times the price?
My main memory of the Westland saga now is of Spitting Image puppets racing around with helicopters in their hair. The details, alas, escape me. It certainly never seemed worth losing a couple of more than averagely competent cabinet ministers over.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
I'm not talking about Starmer. I'm just saying that Tories shouldn't take all their English seats for granted. Who knows what might happen in the future?
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
But we're not discussing specific policies.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
You’re making the SNP’s case for it by talking about the constituent nations as separate, and gleefully celebrating the success of a largely English party in running the other nations.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
I'm not talking about Starmer. I'm just saying that Tories shouldn't take all their English seats for granted. Who knows what might happen in the future?
The likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is with support from the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs while the Tories still win a majority in England.
Labour would need a 1997 style landslide to win a majority in England in 2024 and it would take a huge shift in polling for that
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
I'm not talking about Starmer. I'm just saying that Tories shouldn't take all their English seats for granted. Who knows what might happen in the future?
The likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is with support from the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs while the Tories still win a majority in England.
Labour would need a 1997 style landslide to win a majority in England in 2024 and it would take a huge shift in polling for that
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
Really?
No. I think that importing wholesale to the UK a grievance against a real but very specifically US phenomenon - the tendency of their police to disproportionately kill young black men - and using it as a tool to undermine the foundations of our culture is not just impractical, but irremediably stupid and unjust.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
But we're not discussing specific policies.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
Indeed. I am against you in most politics but 100% agree with everything you write here.
Anyone who responds to 'black lives matter' with 'all lives matter' is a dick, pure and simple.
The way I see it is like responding to "Justice for the 96" with "Justice for everyone" any time it is brought up.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
You’re making the SNP’s case for it by talking about the constituent nations as separate, and gleefully celebrating the success of a largely English party in running the other nations.
Wrong.
The opposite, in 1950 and 1964 and February 1964 Labour won a UK majority thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs despite the Tory majority in England. On current polling the likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is a repeat, the Tories win a majority in England while Starmer becomes UK PM thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs.
So Starmer would in effect be the SNP's puppet UK PM despite a Tory majority in England and no English Parliament now unlike the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments with the current UK Tory majority.
The constituent nations have been separate ever since Blair introduced devolution.
Either we scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore direct rule from Westminster so we can talk about the UK as one true union again or we introduce an English parliament or regional assemblies alongside those in the other home nations and have a truly Federal UK
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
But we're not discussing specific policies.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
I don't think many sane people disagree with the (lower case) notion that black lives matter. I think there is stern resistance to people trying to blur the gap between black lives mattering, and BLM the movement, which are very different things.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
You're doing it here and proving my point exactly. 100% focus on the demerits (iyo) of those making the arguments. 0% focus on the arguments.
Can you not at least make me work a bit?
For the left, Fine sentiments and fine arguments excuse everything. Its enough that you believe whatever your crimes and misdemeanors. Anything can and will be overlooked, so long as you say the the right things. So vandalism, looting, arson, right up to persecution, gulag and mass murder.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
Really?
No. I think that importing wholesale to the UK a grievance against a real but very specifically US phenomenon - the tendency of their police to disproportionately kill young black men - and using it as a tool to undermine the foundations of our culture is not just impractical, but irremediably stupid and unjust.
Rubbish. You criticise Starmer for "taking the knee" when he is just showing support of exactly what you say — the fight against the US police disproportionately killing young black men.
A majority of those in the UK who support the "black lives matter" movement are simply supporting their US brothers and sisters and making a general statement against racism and have no desire to "undermine the foundations of our culture".
With all due respect it just makes you sound like a paranoid loon.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
But we're not discussing specific policies.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
I don't think many sane people disagree with the (lower case) notion that black lives matter. I think there is stern resistance to people trying to blur the gap between black lives mattering, and BLM the movement, which are very different things.
100% agree with you. However people like @contrarian make no distinction and it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion about the issues and any potential solutions before it descends into a "us vs them" situation.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
My point is that black lives don't matter much to those doing the lecturing about how much they matter.
Why don't you say what you really mean: Democrats?
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
You're dealing with someone who defended the chap who flew the White Lives Matter banner.
Save your energy.
That recent government report on race must have hurt TSE. Must have hurt bad. Imagine Britain not being the land of knuckle dragging racists of your imagination.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
You are really dumb as a turd.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
And the shoes. Don't forget the shoes. Amazing tolerance.
Someone needs to get on the blower to Priti to bring @TheScreamingEagles 's shoes to her attention, to be honest.
Do you think she'd say that they are glarin', nauseatin', and loud enough to be deafenin'?
I don't think many sane people disagree with the (lower case) notion that black lives matter. I think there is stern resistance to people trying to blur the gap between black lives mattering, and BLM the movement, which are very different things.
From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.
Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests. That means from 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests
... according to this study, BLM protests also produce their intended effect.
That intended effect presumably not being Lives Mattering.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Garbage.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
Right. But what is your point?
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
The point (for me, anyway) is that ideologically-driven leftist proposed solutions have a strong tendency to not work, and often make the situation worse.
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
But we're not discussing specific policies.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
I don't think many sane people disagree with the (lower case) notion that black lives matter. I think there is stern resistance to people trying to blur the gap between black lives mattering, and BLM the movement, which are very different things.
100% agree with you. However people like @contrarian make no distinction and it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion about the issues and any potential solutions before it descends into a "us vs them" situation.
... yes. I can't say I'm not occasionally guilty of this myself, but - if you read that back - the problem is you're trying to have rational discussion with someone who styles himself "contrarian".
I'm happy enough that the overwhelming majority of posters here who aren't actively trying to troll people (whether or not they are gracious enough to notify us of the fact in advance) are in broad agreement on this issue.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
Really?
No. I think that importing wholesale to the UK a grievance against a real but very specifically US phenomenon - the tendency of their police to disproportionately kill young black men - and using it as a tool to undermine the foundations of our culture is not just impractical, but irremediably stupid and unjust.
Rubbish. You criticise Starmer for "taking the knee" when he is just showing support of exactly what you say — the fight against the US police disproportionately killing young black men.
A majority of those in the UK who support the "black lives matter" movement are simply supporting their US brothers and sisters and making a general statement against racism and have no desire to "undermine the foundations of our culture".
With all due respect it just makes you sound like a paranoid loon.
Starmer's ostentatious kneeling in the UK was just a show of support for action against the US police?
I'm afraid that's not how politics works. By taking that ridiculous action here he gave succour to the idea that Britain has exactly the same issues as the US does, whereas in fact it takes our police many decades to kill as many people as their US equivalents do in one, and they suffer - if anything - from an excess of political correctness in their actions.
Not only that, but the main manifestation of the 'movement' in the UK has been a series of violent riots in our cities, followed by pressure on bodies ranging from the National Trust, the Mayor of London (not that he needed much prompting), and the Church of England to efface or conceal allegedly 'problematic' aspects of our national heritage. Which has the square root of fuck all to do with a murder trial in Minneapolis.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
You’re making the SNP’s case for it by talking about the constituent nations as separate, and gleefully celebrating the success of a largely English party in running the other nations.
Wrong.
The opposite, in 1950 and 1964 and February 1964 Labour won a UK majority thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs despite the Tory majority in England. On current polling the likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is a repeat, the Tories win a majority in England while Starmer becomes UK PM thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs.
So Starmer would in effect be the SNP's puppet UK PM despite a Tory majority in England and no English Parliament now unlike the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments with the current UK Tory majority.
The constituent nations have been separate ever since Blair introduced devolution.
Either we scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore direct rule from Westminster so we can talk about the UK as one true union again or we introduce an English parliament or regional assemblies alongside those in the other home nations and have a truly Federal UK
I don’t think you understood my point because you’ve done it again. Calling Starmer in such circumstances a puppet suggests you don’t want the same Union I loved. You want an English empire - which is the SNP’s point made for them.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
No, I can't be having that. There's nothing utopian about causes such as eroding racism in the police and wider society. There's nothing utopian generally about seeking a significant reduction in inequalities of class, race, and gender - which is the umbrella mission statement of the modern left. Of course the more elevated are the principles underlying your politics, the more likely it is that in your personal life you will fall short of them. So what. It makes little difference to the arguments unless the clash is egregious. The "hypocrite" charge from the right is usually a cheap shot, a tactic used to smear and to avoid arguments which they find too difficult, or they wish to avoid as being too revealing of their own lax value system. They use it safe in the knowledge that it's a one way street. The fire can't be returned in kind because they can rarely be accused of hypocrisy themselves. If you don't have any values it's quite easy to live up to them.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
Really?
No. I think that importing wholesale to the UK a grievance against a real but very specifically US phenomenon - the tendency of their police to disproportionately kill young black men - and using it as a tool to undermine the foundations of our culture is not just impractical, but irremediably stupid and unjust.
Was there not a study that, when controlling for income, suggested that blacks and whites were equally likely to be killed by police - it’s just because poor whites don’t have as good a media campaign that it’s seen specifically as an issue of race?
On racism, I take serious issue with two groups of people.
The first - those who deny racism exists and pretend we live in some ideal world and no one discriminates based on skin colour or names etc... I don't think there are too many of these people but they are loud and at best misguided or at worst downright dishonest about what society is really like.
The second - people who pretend that the UK is some overtly racist country and society where anyone who isn't white is unable to be successful and that their failings in life are because of some perceived white privilege that they don't have rather than their own personal failings.
Both groups are as irritating as each other. Happily the first group is slowly dying out as older people die and attitudes change. My worry is about the second group and the whole industry of grievance being built up by left wing agitators and exploiting people's perceived lack of success into narrative of white people withholding it from non-white people somehow.
Nice work if you can get it, especially for Marxists
@disclosetv NEW - Black Lives Matter co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly bought not just one but four high-end homes and also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort (NY Post)
How can they matter when, under a Biden administration and in cities that have been dominated by democrats for decades, young black men are slaughtering each other to the extent we found out the other day homicide is the chief cause of death in the 18-35 age group. (I think it was Philip Thompson who highlighted this).
Its almost as if the people who purport to stand up for the interests of blacks were part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether black lives matter? Please explain.
You may be a bit younger than me but it's clear that you've sussed out an essential truth about the right wing of modern politics.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
The main reason is that 'progressive' causes tend to be very heavy on utopian idealism and puritanical moral righteousness, against which conservatives naturally tend to recalcitrate on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature. So when the proponents of such causes turn out in many cases to be mere grifters and hypocrites, that helps prove our case not only against the individuals but against the workability of the concept as a whole - after all, if even the leading advocates can't stick to their own principles, why on earth should the rest of us? See Diane Abbott passim.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
You think that a desire to build awareness with the goal of reducing the amount of black people who get gunned down in the street by US police should be resisted on the grounds of impracticality and incompatibility with human nature?
Really?
No. I think that importing wholesale to the UK a grievance against a real but very specifically US phenomenon - the tendency of their police to disproportionately kill young black men - and using it as a tool to undermine the foundations of our culture is not just impractical, but irremediably stupid and unjust.
Rubbish. You criticise Starmer for "taking the knee" when he is just showing support of exactly what you say — the fight against the US police disproportionately killing young black men.
A majority of those in the UK who support the "black lives matter" movement are simply supporting their US brothers and sisters and making a general statement against racism and have no desire to "undermine the foundations of our culture".
With all due respect it just makes you sound like a paranoid loon.
Starmer's ostentatious kneeling in the UK was just a show of support for action against the US police?
I'm afraid that's not how politics works. By taking that ridiculous action here he gave succour to the idea that Britain has exactly the same issues as the US does, whereas in fact it takes our police many decades to kill as many people as their US equivalents do in one, and they suffer - if anything - from an excess of political correctness in their actions.
Not only that, but the main manifestation of the 'movement' in the UK has been a series of violent riots in our cities, followed by pressure on bodies ranging from the National Trust, the Mayor of London, and the Church of England to efface or conceal allegedly 'problematic' aspects of our national heritage. Which has the square root of fuck all to do with a murder trial in Minneapolis.
It isn't a 'ridiculous' action. It was a show of support against racism. If that offends you then that says more about you. And it especially says a lot about you that you feel threatened by such a symbol.
Furthermore moves to highlight 'problematic' aspects of our national heritage has nothing to do with black lives matter. There may be some overlap between people who support both aspects, but that's it.
Frankly you're creating a bogeyman in your head and that bogeyman is "black lives matter".
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
It does not matter, Tory backbenchers alone would be enough to topple him and they would if he lost Scotland
Except, Tory backbenchers would have voted for the process that got us to that point....
I think Tory backbenchers will be far more concerned with how to ensure they keep their seat at the next election.
If Scotland votes Yes and the PM can twist that to say that he will need to stand up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the future negotiations with Scotland (like the EU27 acted) then that could play into the Tories interests. Especially if Labour are seen as being weak and only able to get in power with Scotland's help, who can trust them to negotiate with the Scots in our interests?
It will be entirely possible for a Tory PM to turn Scotland voting for independence in a reason to vote Tory and if the backbenchers think that saves their seats they will go for it.
The Tories would likely win an English majority either way, Starmer could only become UK PM with SNP and Welsh Labour MPs support most likely so it would make little difference to their seats.
They would also want Boris to take the blame for losing Scotland, they could then rebuild under Sunak who also is more serious and hard headed than Boris and better able to get one over the SNP in any Scexit talks
It's this kind of "taking votes for granted" that got Labour into trouble.
The only Labour leader who has won a majority in England to take Labour into power since Attlee in 1945 was Blair in 1997.
Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only got in thanks to the majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Home and Heath won a Tory majority in England.
In 1950 even Attlee failed to keep his English majority, again being re elected only thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Blair is the only Labour leader ever to have won a majority and been re elected with a majority in England.
So absent a Blairite Labour leader just a statement of the obvious
And the only Conservative Leader to win Sedgefield since 1945 was... Boris Johnson.
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris Johnson won a majority in England as has every winning Tory PM since 1945.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
Exactly.
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
Thanks for confirming that at every election they won across the UK the Tories won a majority in England.
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
You’re making the SNP’s case for it by talking about the constituent nations as separate, and gleefully celebrating the success of a largely English party in running the other nations.
Wrong.
The opposite, in 1950 and 1964 and February 1964 Labour won a UK majority thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs despite the Tory majority in England. On current polling the likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is a repeat, the Tories win a majority in England while Starmer becomes UK PM thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs.
So Starmer would in effect be the SNP's puppet UK PM despite a Tory majority in England and no English Parliament now unlike the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments with the current UK Tory majority.
The constituent nations have been separate ever since Blair introduced devolution.
Either we scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore direct rule from Westminster so we can talk about the UK as one true union again or we introduce an English parliament or regional assemblies alongside those in the other home nations and have a truly Federal UK
I don’t think you understood my point because you’ve done it again. Calling Starmer in such circumstances a puppet suggests you don’t want the same Union I loved. You want an English empire - which is the SNP’s point made for them.
There is no Union as was and has not been since 1999. That is the whole point, we now have a Federal UK for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which have their own Parliaments and Assemblies for their domestic policy but not for England which does not have a Parliament of its own.
So either we restore a genuine Union by scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd or we have a genuine Federal UK for the whole UK and create an English Parliament with the same powers Holyrood and the Senedd have (or at least English regional assemblies) and just leave Westminster as the Federal UK Parliament.
My wanting English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont and removing Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs and peers from Westminster too
The Chauvin/Floyd death/trial is interesting (As much of US news culturally wonders across the pond) but it's got as much proper relevance to the UK as abhorrent gang rapes in India, forest fires in California or Australia or Italian prosecutors seizing AZ doses. There are issues that are related - racism, misogny, climate change but things are very different in other countries.
Comments
WRONG AGAIN
Fox were RIGHT to call AZ, as they called the winner accurately. That they beat all the other networks to it was an added feather in the caps of their decision deskmen.
Therefore if he's acquitted it's going to come as quite a surprise. There's a real danger of serious rioting in that eventuality.
A brilliant anti-tip from PB's #1 anti-tipster?
Things change. You can't take votes for granted.
Boris has defeated those that came before him - including May and Cameron incidentally - by knowing that full well.
And that isn't really relevant here in any case. We're not talking about politics, we're talking about US cops gunning black people down in the street.
A big part of the problem is that the police have bought into the "thin blue line" mentality. That they are the unthanked, unloved and stretched to breaking point bulwark between civilization and anarchy. It simply isn't true, but far too many of them act as if it is, and treat encounters as if they are potentially life-threatening to an extent that simply is not justified by the facts.
Save your energy.
God, I have missed the face to face banter.
Pillocks.
Still, it was received calmly and rationally by its opponents. Not.
The Irish 'war of independence' war not a full-scale war, like the American War of the Independence, or the First World War, it was more like the Troubles. There weren't pitched battles with military on both sides.
Tens of thousands were killed in the American War of Independence. That was avoided in Ireland.
The level of violence seen in Ireland was frankly rather small scale, of its day, It could have been escalated much more but that was wisely avoided.
The level of violence in Ireland was rather low and peaceful for its day. People tend to view things in the past from the prism of the lens of today.
We should seek a low level of violence for today with Scotland, which is no violence nowadays.
I actually said I agreed parts of the report, especially about the bit class/background being more of a determinant of life outcomes than race which is something I've mentioned a bit on PB.
Also, I've never said the UK is a land of knuckle dragging racists, I've said the UK does have some racists but there's no other country in the world that I'd rather live in.
The UK is a fantastically tolerant country, it welcomed by grandparents to this country without issue, well apart from that prize bellend Powell.
The UK is so tolerant that it even let me marry one of the native white women without anyone batting an eyelid.
There were a couple of antivaxxers near the Arndale, I heard one person tell them to fuck off, which cheered me up.
That doesn't mean there isn't more work to do though — there's always room for improvement.
Do you disagree?
That record is not good, and those purporting to stand up for certain communities have legitimate questions to answer.
They rarely argue against the merits of a progressive cause. Their overwhelming preference is to cast aspersions on the motives of those who argue for it.
There are various reason for this - none of which reflect too well on them.
Speaking as a republican myself I think its perfectly possible to give praise to Prince Philip in his own right for his service without saying that.
Labour has only won a majority in England in 5 out of the 9 elections it has won since 1945 and 3 of those were under Blair.
The Tories are not going to start doing better in Wales and Scotland than they do in England.
Sedgefield has always been cultually conservative and proud of its country, even if economically less conservative, we now have a culturally conservative, relatively nationalist Tory government that is centrist economically, so it was more the Tory Party that has changed than Sedgefield and Sedgefield now feels it is a Tory Party worth supporting
I mean we have one sort of ongoing and in the not too distant past. Wasn't/isn't 100% peaceful I have to tell you.
There was some criminality, there is always criminality, but there was no war.
My preference is to look at the track record of those who argue the progressive cause and lecture others on how racist they are and how they do not care about one community or another,
The record of the democratic party in the cities it has controlled for decades is nothing short of a catastrophe. A complete catastrophe.
Many of these cities are close to collapse. A couple, essentially, have collapsed.
They value 300 jobs at $20m paid over 10 years on the form of tax deductions and offsets.
£500m guarantee upfront for 100 jobs is well off-market
Not many of us are right more often that we are wrong with our betting tips.
You can criticise virtue signallers for not practicing what they preach, sure.
But that's different to criticising WHAT they preach.
You do the latter by focusing on the former and it doesn't make any logical sense.
No wonder given 64% of LDs, 58% of Remainers, 50% of Scots and 48% of Labour voters back keeping the monarchy, let alone 85% of Tory voters and 78% of Leave voters
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rwltuoo339/Attitudes to monarchy.pdf
Constable Savage to the Green courtesy phone. Constable Savage to the Green courtesy phone, please
Can you not at least make me work a bit?
Labour won Sedgefield at every election since 1945... until they didn't.
the Conservatives have won England in most election since 1945... except for all the times they didn't.
You can't take votes for granted. That's the mistake Labour made.
If the Conservatives focus too much on the 'red wall' and take their "heartlands" for granted they might just see the same thing happen to them.
The same of course goes for their occasional counterparts on the right, like the hypocritical US evangelicals who bitterly denounce Sodom by day and cheerfully embrace it by night.
Perhaps head to the gym as previously planned in order to clear your head. Probably a bit fuzzy right now. Seems so.
Really?
The Tories have never won more seats in Scotland and Wales as a percentage than they won in England, even if they have lost England they have lost Scotland and Wales by even more.
So my point remains absolutely right, Starmer can get into power by winning in Scotland and Wales but not in England, he has zero change of winning in England without also winning in Scotland and Wales and would need a 1997 style landslide to win in England in 2024
Either because the solutions are wrong-headed, or (more rarely) because the proposers don't actually care about solving the problem - they want the problem to remain so they can continue to weaponise it - or at least, they don't particularly care whether it works or not.
Criticising people's motivations is sometime a way to point out that the latter is happening. More often, it's just an easy way of arguing that whatever dumb idea the left has come up with most recently and is trying to implement, is dumb.
It would be very reasonable to oppose "defund the police" measures for the reasons you state.
But that has nothing to do with the underlying message: "black lives matter".
Proper political debate would be: 'I agree black lives matter – let's do X instead of what you suggest Y'. These days all we get is 'white lives matter, f*ck you'.
Labour would need a 1997 style landslide to win a majority in England in 2024 and it would take a huge shift in polling for that
Anyone who responds to 'black lives matter' with 'all lives matter' is a dick, pure and simple.
The way I see it is like responding to "Justice for the 96" with "Justice for everyone" any time it is brought up.
The opposite, in 1950 and 1964 and February 1964 Labour won a UK majority thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs despite the Tory majority in England. On current polling the likeliest way Starmer becomes PM in 2024 is a repeat, the Tories win a majority in England while Starmer becomes UK PM thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs.
So Starmer would in effect be the SNP's puppet UK PM despite a Tory majority in England and no English Parliament now unlike the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments with the current UK Tory majority.
The constituent nations have been separate ever since Blair introduced devolution.
Either we scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore direct rule from Westminster so we can talk about the UK as one true union again or we introduce an English parliament or regional assemblies alongside those in the other home nations and have a truly Federal UK
A majority of those in the UK who support the "black lives matter" movement are simply supporting their US brothers and sisters and making a general statement against racism and have no desire to "undermine the foundations of our culture".
With all due respect it just makes you sound like a paranoid loon.
From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.
Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests. That means from 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests
... according to this study, BLM protests also produce their intended effect.
That intended effect presumably not being Lives Mattering.
I'm happy enough that the overwhelming majority of posters here who aren't actively trying to troll people (whether or not they are gracious enough to notify us of the fact in advance) are in broad agreement on this issue.
Impressive life expectancy from the Gang of 4 members.
I'm afraid that's not how politics works. By taking that ridiculous action here he gave succour to the idea that Britain has exactly the same issues as the US does, whereas in fact it takes our police many decades to kill as many people as their US equivalents do in one, and they suffer - if anything - from an excess of political correctness in their actions.
Not only that, but the main manifestation of the 'movement' in the UK has been a series of violent riots in our cities, followed by pressure on bodies ranging from the National Trust, the Mayor of London (not that he needed much prompting), and the Church of England to efface or conceal allegedly 'problematic' aspects of our national heritage. Which has the square root of fuck all to do with a murder trial in Minneapolis.
But Rodgers and Williams are/were good things.
The first - those who deny racism exists and pretend we live in some ideal world and no one discriminates based on skin colour or names etc... I don't think there are too many of these people but they are loud and at best misguided or at worst downright dishonest about what society is really like.
The second - people who pretend that the UK is some overtly racist country and society where anyone who isn't white is unable to be successful and that their failings in life are because of some perceived white privilege that they don't have rather than their own personal failings.
Both groups are as irritating as each other. Happily the first group is slowly dying out as older people die and attitudes change. My worry is about the second group and the whole industry of grievance being built up by left wing agitators and exploiting people's perceived lack of success into narrative of white people withholding it from non-white people somehow.
Furthermore moves to highlight 'problematic' aspects of our national heritage has nothing to do with black lives matter. There may be some overlap between people who support both aspects, but that's it.
Frankly you're creating a bogeyman in your head and that bogeyman is "black lives matter".
So either we restore a genuine Union by scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd or we have a genuine Federal UK for the whole UK and create an English Parliament with the same powers Holyrood and the Senedd have (or at least English regional assemblies) and just leave Westminster as the Federal UK Parliament.
My wanting English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont and removing Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs and peers from Westminster too
There are issues that are related - racism, misogny, climate change but things are very different in other countries.