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.
What prevents a 'rational discussion' is the phrase 'black lives matter' itself.
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
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.
It's just one of those stories that "capture the imagination" and have a cultural impact. Right place, right time, right conditions.
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.
What prevents a 'rational discussion' is the phrase 'black lives matter' itself.
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
might be a better starting place.
There's no rational explanation for being so offended by "black lives matter". I'm not black and I'm not offended. Why are you offended?
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.
English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and removing Scottish and Welsh MPs and peers from Westminster too
This is quite correct.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
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.
See, this is why Jeremy Corbyn was so damaging for your politics. Because we now have cast-iron proof that the Left doesn't actually care about eradicating racism. Because they suddenly couldn't see it a million miles off, just because it was one of their own exhibiting it.
It's natural to care only about the prospects of your own family, community etc. It's laudable to care just as much (or almost as much) about the prospects of those further afield, or those you have little to do with except for sharing a city/country/whatever. But if we have evidence that those whose "umbrella mission statement" is to combat bigotry, are actually just doing the same as the rest of us in looking after their own interests, then why should the rest of us bother? And why on earth would anyone vote for your lot to implement it?
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?
I haven't seen it - I thought that the disproportionality was generally accepted, but some hard data to the contrary would be interesting.
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.
There are people whose very livelihoods depend on friction and conflict between the races. And good livelihoods they are too,
I remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown salivating over a lucrative article she was being commissioned to write by an American magazine about the 2011 riots in London.
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.
English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and removing Scottish and Welsh MPs and peers from Westminster too
This is quite correct.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
I don't really see the issue with the 'size' of the English Parliament. It would be bigger because it would have a bigger job - it wouldn't be 'weightier' or more important, or constantly bullying the 'small' parliaments of the other nations, because there wouldn't be a forum for it do so. I wouldn't see a case for regional assemblies alongside it, because of cost and duplication.
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.
What prevents a 'rational discussion' is the phrase 'black lives matter' itself.
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
might be a better starting place.
There's no rational explanation for being so offended by "black lives matter". I'm not black and I'm not offended. Why are you offended?
It suggest something else is going on.
The very utterance of the phrase 'black lives matter' carries with it an assumption. The assumption is there is a significant section of society that doesn't think black lives matter. That is why it is so poisonous and insidious,
We don;t say the earth is round much, do we? why? because everyone knows it is. If there were government campaigns to the effect that the earth was round what would people think?
They would think there must be people, quite a few of them, who thought it was flat. Otherwise why repeat the perfectly obvious?
According to the Telegraph, Prince Harry has paid tribute to his 'legend of banter' grandfather. Which I am not it sure is necessarily how the DofE would have liked to be remembered. Also a timely reminder that Harry is quite capable of sounding like a twat outside of California and without the prompting of his wife.
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.
What prevents a 'rational discussion' is the phrase 'black lives matter' itself.
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
might be a better starting place.
There's no rational explanation for being so offended by "black lives matter". I'm not black and I'm not offended. Why are you offended?
It suggest something else is going on.
The very utterance of the phrase 'black lives matter' carries with it an assumption. The assumption is there is a significant section of society that doesn't think black lives matter. That is why it is so poisonous and insidious,
And, at least for the US, it's absolutely correct. There is a significant section of society that doesn't think black lives matter.
A leading sight charity has stressed the need for inclusive web design after rail websites switched to black and white to mark Prince Philip’s death, leaving partially sighted people struggling.
Network Rail and National Rail websites turned from colour to greyscale on Monday morning in a tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh. The gesture backfired after customers highlighted accessibility issues and complained they could no longer use the website.
Unbelievable that the “Bridges Plan” of some rail organisations included this.
Did you know that the ORR - who were guilty of this too - mandate for train doors to be a different colour to the rest of coach?
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.
English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and removing Scottish and Welsh MPs and peers from Westminster too
This is quite correct.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
I don't really see the issue with the 'size' of the English Parliament. It would be bigger because it would have a bigger job - it wouldn't be 'weightier' or more important, or constantly bullying the 'small' parliaments of the other nations, because there wouldn't be a forum for it do so. I wouldn't see a case for regional assemblies alongside it, because of cost and duplication.
The regional assemblies were to be instead of it, not alongside it.
As for size not being an issue, check out the history of Prussia in the Kaiserreich. And then remember England is relatively speaking larger than Prussia was.
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".
What does it say about me? That I'm putting on a white hood and heading off to celebrate unlockdown in my local boozer, The Exalted Cyclops? I'm afraid that being against Starmer's silly virtue-signalling gestures is just a sign of being thoroughly normal in this country.
And if you think that's there just 'some overlap' between international BLM and the campaign against British and Western culture as a whole, there's not much I can do to alleviate your naïveté. The relationship between them is the same as that between the part and the whole.
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.
English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and removing Scottish and Welsh MPs and peers from Westminster too
This is quite correct.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
I don't really see the issue with the 'size' of the English Parliament. It would be bigger because it would have a bigger job - it wouldn't be 'weightier' or more important, or constantly bullying the 'small' parliaments of the other nations, because there wouldn't be a forum for it do so. I wouldn't see a case for regional assemblies alongside it, because of cost and duplication.
I think the issue (and this may be what ydoethur is saying) is not that the regional parliaments are of different sizes, but how that is squared at the federal level. Do you have a Westminster with similar allocations to now (population based) in which case the England UK MPs can easily outvote MPs from other nations - i.e. they could pork barrel UK spending/siting of infrastructure for England? Or do you have each nation with an equal weight in the UK parliament, in which case the smaller nations, with a tiny part of the overall population, could dictate the UK's direction?
It's not easy, but if the UK is to survive then I think we need to work out the answer. It might be an upper/lower house combo with one population weighted and the other at least more equal say for each nation.
Edit: And if we can't adequately resolve this question, then it's probably an indication that the UK should not survive as a single entity.
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.
English equality with Scotland within the UK is not demanding an English Empire, that would require scrapping Holyrood and the Senedd and removing Scottish and Welsh MPs and peers from Westminster too
This is quite correct.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
I don't really see the issue with the 'size' of the English Parliament. It would be bigger because it would have a bigger job - it wouldn't be 'weightier' or more important, or constantly bullying the 'small' parliaments of the other nations, because there wouldn't be a forum for it do so. I wouldn't see a case for regional assemblies alongside it, because of cost and duplication.
I think the issue (and this may be what ydoethur is saying) is not that the regional parliaments are of different sizes, but how that is squared at the federal level. Do you have a Westminster with similar allocations to now (population based) in which case the England UK MPs can easily outvote MPs from other nations - i.e. they could pork barrel UK spending/siting of infrastructure for England? Or do you have each nation with an equal weight in the UK parliament, in which case the smaller nations, with a tiny part of the overall population, could dictate the UK's direction?
It's not easy, but if the UK is to survive then I think we need to work out the answer. It might be an upper/lower house combo with one population weighted and the other at least more equal say for each nation.
Edit: And if we can't adequately resolve this question, then it's probably an indication that the UK should not survive as a single entity.
The problem is partly that, but it’s also the fact England is far wealthier than the others. How do you carve up the money? If it’s equally, what’s the point of the Union? If it isn’t to start with, won’t England simply use its size to keep outvoting the others? Which leads to the same problem.
That’s one reason why New Labour was into regionalism, but the model they proposed would never have succeeded.
As for size not being an issue, check out the history of Prussia in the Kaiserreich. And then remember England is relatively speaking larger than Prussia was.
The last thing we need is more useless layers of government. If a matter affects England only doesn't the speaker make a determination and English MPs only are counted for the vote ? Well it should be that way anyway.
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?
I haven't seen it - I thought that the disproportionality was generally accepted, but some hard data to the contrary would be interesting.
Indeed. Seems rather difficult to find it for some reason, but IIRC it concluded that young back boys are more likely to end up in gangs, rather than that the police all all racists, so it’s probably been scrubbed from the Internet by now
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.
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.
And again (!) you focus purely on the makers of the argument not the argument.
Is it a lack of desire to get beyond that or lack of ability?
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.
Ah, but in practice your final point - what you might consider your most telling line of attack - cuts much harder against you than it does us. Yes, the right can rarely be accused of hypocrisy these days precisely because we've dropped most of the pretensions to moral puritanism that were the worst and least popular parts of our ideology, and instead handed them all to the left to enjoy. And enjoy them they have, penning new scriptures and multiplying miseries and dogmas with gleeful abandon - then falling flat on their face when the rubber of principle meets the road of reality. There are many reasons why the left are having trouble gaining ground, but exchanging their 1960s mantle of liberty for that of ever-tightening prescriptivism was an epochal error. Conservatives want life to be as simple and easy as possible; progressives promise the opposite, and wonder why so few mortals make the choice of Hercules at the crossroads.
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.
What prevents a 'rational discussion' is the phrase 'black lives matter' itself.
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
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.
See, this is why Jeremy Corbyn was so damaging for your politics. Because we now have cast-iron proof that the Left doesn't actually care about eradicating racism. Because they suddenly couldn't see it a million miles off, just because it was one of their own exhibiting it.
It's natural to care only about the prospects of your own family, community etc. It's laudable to care just as much (or almost as much) about the prospects of those further afield, or those you have little to do with except for sharing a city/country/whatever. But if we have evidence that those whose "umbrella mission statement" is to combat bigotry, are actually just doing the same as the rest of us in looking after their own interests, then why should the rest of us bother? And why on earth would anyone vote for your lot to implement it?
The antisemitism issue did damage Labour, yes. What it did not do is "deliver cast iron proof that the Left doesn't care about eradicating racism". That is a contender for partisan hyperbole of the year.
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
No, his course of action that led to Scotland going independent would have been voted through by all those Tory MPs you think are going to defenestrate him. That makes no sense.
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.
Ah, but in practice your final point - what you might consider your most telling line of attack - cuts much harder against you than it does us. Yes, the right can rarely be accused of hypocrisy these days precisely because we've dropped most of the pretensions to moral puritanism that were the worst and least popular parts of our ideology, and instead handed them all to the left to enjoy. And enjoy them they have, penning new scriptures and multiplying miseries and dogmas with gleeful abandon - then falling flat on their face when the rubber of principle meets the road of reality. There are many reasons why the left are having trouble gaining ground, but exchanging their 1960s mantle of liberty for that of ever-tightening prescriptivism was an epochal error. Conservatives want life to be as simple and easy as possible; progressives promise the opposite, and wonder why so few mortals make the choice of Hercules at the crossroads.
There's a germ of truth here although as you'd expect I would express it differently. Which I will now do. There is indeed a political price to be paid for being overtly progressive. This is because it is easier to sell platitudes of the "rising tide lifts all boats" ilk than it is to take a deep dive into the causes of inequality in society and develop tools to mitigate it. The latter all too easily sounds like very hard work indeed. But there's a reason for that - it is!
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
No, his course of action that led to Scotland going independent would have been voted through by all those Tory MPs you think are going to defenestrate him. That makes no sense.
No, the scenario would be he allowed a vote as UK PM but did not allow the Commons to vote on it, even if highly unlikely.
Regardless he would be toppled obviously if it was lost.
Comments
That phrase belongs in the nineteenth century when black lives genuinely and manifestly did not matter. That anybody, anybody, uses it in modern Britain, or even modern America, is a huge insult to societies that have striven to make lives of all ethnic minorities better in recent decades.
'Despite progress, certain communities still get a very raw deal in our society. Let's try to find out why''
might be a better starting place.
It suggest something else is going on.
The issue is option 1 is unacceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and I would think Wales as well, while option 2 is a difficult one to work out between regional assemblies/metro mayors/English Parliament that would be five times the size and mass of the other three combined.
Of course, you could argue this was the situation from 1922 to 1973 with Stormont, but as Northern Ireland was effectively a dominion (albeit one that sent MPs to Westminster) with far wider powers than Holyrood currently has, that isn’t the best of arguments.
It's natural to care only about the prospects of your own family, community etc. It's laudable to care just as much (or almost as much) about the prospects of those further afield, or those you have little to do with except for sharing a city/country/whatever. But if we have evidence that those whose "umbrella mission statement" is to combat bigotry, are actually just doing the same as the rest of us in looking after their own interests, then why should the rest of us bother? And why on earth would anyone vote for your lot to implement it?
I remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown salivating over a lucrative article she was being commissioned to write by an American magazine about the 2011 riots in London.
'' Conflict?? - Ker-ching! "
We don;t say the earth is round much, do we? why? because everyone knows it is. If there were government campaigns to the effect that the earth was round what would people think?
They would think there must be people, quite a few of them, who thought it was flat. Otherwise why repeat the perfectly obvious?
Which I am not it sure is necessarily how the DofE would have liked to be remembered.
Also a timely reminder that Harry is quite capable of sounding like a twat outside of California and without the prompting of his wife.
A leading sight charity has stressed the need for inclusive web design after rail websites switched to black and white to mark Prince Philip’s death, leaving partially sighted people struggling.
Network Rail and National Rail websites turned from colour to greyscale on Monday morning in a tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh. The gesture backfired after customers highlighted accessibility issues and complained they could no longer use the website.
Unbelievable that the “Bridges Plan” of some rail organisations included this.
Did you know that the ORR - who were guilty of this too - mandate for train doors to be a different colour to the rest of coach?
As for size not being an issue, check out the history of Prussia in the Kaiserreich. And then remember England is relatively speaking larger than Prussia was.
And if you think that's there just 'some overlap' between international BLM and the campaign against British and Western culture as a whole, there's not much I can do to alleviate your naïveté. The relationship between them is the same as that between the part and the whole.
It's not easy, but if the UK is to survive then I think we need to work out the answer. It might be an upper/lower house combo with one population weighted and the other at least more equal say for each nation.
Edit: And if we can't adequately resolve this question, then it's probably an indication that the UK should not survive as a single entity.
NEW THREAD
That’s one reason why New Labour was into regionalism, but the model they proposed would never have succeeded.
Well it should be that way anyway.
Is it a lack of desire to get beyond that or lack of ability?
Regardless he would be toppled obviously if it was lost.