Howdy, Stranger!

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

After a disappointing set of results for LAB one figure appears to have bucked the trend – political

167891012»

Comments

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,810
    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.

    When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.

    No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.

    There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
    But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
    Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
    When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
    I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"

    He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
    Author of the couplet

    I sometimes think that I would like
    To be the saddle of a bike
    When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
    Sounds like the opening of a particularly disturbing B movie.
    Indeed, I remember from Spike Milligan's war memoirs a similar couplet being used in WW2: "oh how I wish, of how I'd like, to be the saddle on her bike."
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Second prefs:

    Khan 192,313 => 1,206,034
    Bailey 84,550 => 977,601

    Khan 55.23%
    Bailey 44.77%

    Bailey 1.6% better than Zac Goldsmith.
    Clearly Sadiq Khan could have been beaten with an exceptionally good Tory candidate. Not sure who that would have been though.
    Hmm - if you can think of one ...
    Rory Stewart?
    Not a Conservative it turns out.
    Not after he was turned out!

    But then, do NOT think Boris really wants a Tory mayor who is not Boris. Politically or psychologically.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.

    When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.

    No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.

    There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
    But if Starmer were to be at it too, it would rather cut off at the knees those who use it to expose Boris' lack of ethics....
    Would depend on what Starmer is "at". If it's Johnson type antics, yes. No place for double standards. But I bet loads would judge him harshly who give Johnson a pass. This is what drives me nuts.
    You have a steering wheel down your y-fronts?
    That's very "fools and horses" - hats off.
    Phoenix Nights!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,198
    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.

    When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.

    No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.

    There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
    But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
    Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
    When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
    I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"

    He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
    Author of the couplet

    I sometimes think that I would like
    To be the saddle of a bike
    When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
    Sounds like the opening of a particularly disturbing B movie.
    Yes. All these years later and I can still hear and see it. It's really stuck. Rather it hadn't.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503

    Andy_JS said:

    "Rachael Burford
    @RachaelBurford

    Reason for the delay here at the City & East - staff found three unopened boxes of votes after everything else had been counted"

    https://twitter.com/RachaelBurford/status/1391135003401142281

    Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
    Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
    Nope. Is that a problem?

    I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
    What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.

    So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.

    Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.

    Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.

    Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.

    Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.

    Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
    Like I say. One job to do.
    And what job do you do, totally perfectly all the time no doubt?

    It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
    I certainly don’t do my job perfectly. But then again I do my job eveyday, day on day. And involves more than counting.

    They have one job. On one occasion. To count. It’s not rocket science. I fail to see how complicated it is.

    They know how many boxes there are.

    Counting isn’t difficult. Most humans have grasped the concept within three or four years of being born, enabled by the suitable education.

    Vote counts aren’t a mystical art only discernible by those privileged few supposedly initiated into the secret ancient art of counting boxes and bits of paper.




    Would some respect for your views on this IF you had ever observed an election up close & personal.

    Since you have not, I do not.
    Agreed. Counting things can be difficult sometimes. And confusing. So I’ll concede the argument to those with the exclusive experience of vote counts which are obviously unique, incomprehensible events to laymen and unrelated to normal life and other jobs.

    Perhaps I’ll fail to “count”’a few million pounds in my job. And then suddenly “find” them. And explain to the regulator that, you know, they really don’t understand how stressful and difficult such things are.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Good evening everyone. Not been following politics tonight, looks like I've missed some fun and games in the Labour Party?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,050
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.

    When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.

    No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.

    There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
    But if Starmer were to be at it too, it would rather cut off at the knees those who use it to expose Boris' lack of ethics....
    Would depend on what Starmer is "at". If it's Johnson type antics, yes. No place for double standards. But I bet loads would judge him harshly who give Johnson a pass. This is what drives me nuts.
    You have a steering wheel down your y-fronts?
    That's very "fools and horses" - hats off.
    Phoenix Nights!
    Surprised that hasn't got Peter Kay on the banned list....plenty of shall we say spicy comments in it.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,857

    No Charisma,

    No Policies

    No Bollocks

    No Chance

    SKS RIP

    SKSICIPM
  • Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    ...

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    I don't fancy his chances having seen him with those boxing gloves on.
    Don’t mention that please. Too much
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,409
    edited May 2021

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
    And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Do we get a brake down of where the 2nd preference votes come from?

    As in how many LD went for Khan how many for Bailey and how many where spoiled, and the same for the other party's?

    I vagally remember seeing it before but doesn't seem to be shown this time.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,384
    dixiedean said:

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
    And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.
    Yes. It's Blairism by numbers, but he's got the paint pots mixed up, and it's so amateurish and self-defeating that it's embarassing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,409
    BigRich said:

    Do we get a brake down of where the 2nd preference votes come from?

    As in how many LD went for Khan how many for Bailey and how many where spoiled, and the same for the other party's?

    I vagally remember seeing it before but doesn't seem to be shown this time.

    Indeed. We also had a breakdown of Burnham's vote by Borough last time. Proving he won all kinds of places that don't vote Labour normally.
    That too is absent this time.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,853
    edited May 2021

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    Then why is he picking a fight with Nandy and Rayner? Neither are Corbyn lefties. It feels like he's just looking to scapegoat them. I don't see how Labour win in 2024 with Starmer in charge. The guy is IDS level bad.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,104
    Whether Rayner is particular good for the party or not, as an outside if I was to select a problem they had she would not have been high on the list.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,409

    dixiedean said:

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
    And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.
    Yes. It's Blairism by numbers, but he's got the paint pots mixed up, and it's so amateurish and self-defeating that it's embarassing.
    Yep. He has Burnham and McDonnell speaking with one voice. Quite an achievement.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    This latest development - following the timing of the Hartlepool byelection - leads me to seriously doubt that Starmer possesses the political skills and antennae for the role of party leader.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    Interesting split ticketing mayor/pcc in the West Midlands
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    Andy_JS said:

    "Rachael Burford
    @RachaelBurford

    Reason for the delay here at the City & East - staff found three unopened boxes of votes after everything else had been counted"

    https://twitter.com/RachaelBurford/status/1391135003401142281

    Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
    Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
    Nope. Is that a problem?

    I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
    What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.

    So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.

    Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.

    Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.

    Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.

    Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.

    Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
    Like I say. One job to do.
    And what job do you do, totally perfectly all the time no doubt?

    It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
    I certainly don’t do my job perfectly. But then again I do my job eveyday, day on day. And involves more than counting.

    They have one job. On one occasion. To count. It’s not rocket science. I fail to see how complicated it is.

    They know how many boxes there are.

    Counting isn’t difficult. Most humans have grasped the concept within three or four years of being born, enabled by the suitable education.

    Vote counts aren’t a mystical art only discernible by those privileged few supposedly initiated into the secret ancient art of counting boxes and bits of paper.




    Would some respect for your views on this IF you had ever observed an election up close & personal.

    Since you have not, I do not.
    Agreed. Counting things can be difficult sometimes. And confusing. So I’ll concede the argument to those with the exclusive experience of vote counts which are obviously unique, incomprehensible events to laymen and unrelated to normal life and other jobs.

    Perhaps I’ll fail to “count”’a few million pounds in my job. And then suddenly “find” them. And explain to the regulator that, you know, they really don’t understand how stressful and difficult such things are.
    Being snarky does not make you correct.

    You talked about doing your job "everday". Do you think that the folks processing & counting ballots do this 40 hours a week all year round save for holidays? Not in your country or in mine. Returning officers & the like tend to be experienced, but many of the worker bees are not.

    But perhaps they could all benefit from your superior talents, dedication & drive?

    Though not I'm guessing from your disdain, condescension as displayed on this thred, about something you yourself admit you really know nothing about.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,198

    dixiedean said:

    Been at the pub and a few drinks down so bear with me.

    It seems to me that Starmer has concluded a public fight with the left is the way to go, based on Mandelson's column I can only assume he is involved.

    But Rayner isn't the left. Nor is Nandy. They are both from one of the few areas they've done well too.
    And Burnham suggests he's picking a fight with everyone.
    Yes. It's Blairism by numbers, but he's got the paint pots mixed up, and it's so amateurish and self-defeating that it's embarassing.
    Yes it all sounds a bit "New Labour. Thames Ditton."

    But I need to check it out.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,409

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,195
    Strong by Omilana for the best of the rest in London mayor race
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,695

    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.

    The role of Christian missionaries in colonialism is a complex one. Certainly traders, then soldiers followed the missionaries, and missionaries were also quite destructive of older cultures.

    They were the main promoters of education though, and nearly all anti-colonial leaders in the British Empire were schooled by missions. The fervency and Biblical knowledge of African congregations are something to be experienced.

    Definitely a mixed picture. My G G G Grandfather was one of the original teachers at Mico College in Jamaica, set up to train ex slaves as teachers and still one of the West Indies leading teaching institutions.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    A Sheffield University guide says 'whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science' must be dismantled

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/08/charles-darwins-theory-natural-selection-justified-white-male/

    See ya, Newton.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Foxy said:

    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.

    The role of Christian missionaries in colonialism is a complex one. Certainly traders, then soldiers followed the missionaries, and missionaries were also quite destructive of older cultures.

    They were the main promoters of education though, and nearly all anti-colonial leaders in the British Empire were schooled by missions. The fervency and Biblical knowledge of African congregations are something to be experienced.

    Definitely a mixed picture. My G G G Grandfather was one of the original teachers at Mico College in Jamaica, set up to train ex slaves as teachers and still one of the West Indies leading teaching institutions.
    Personally don't have much of a problem with missionaries per se, esp. those who demonstrated some true concern for the souls AND bodies of their target converts.

    HOWEVER, the Jesuits of Georgetown who bought and sold human beings, and disregarded even the feeble attempts by the Pope himself to mitigate their dealings, were NOT missionaries.

    And the people they almost literally sold down the river (they either shipped them down the coast, or marched them overland, hundreds of miles from home) were CATHOLICS, people whose people had been living in Maryland for two centuries under Catholic masters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,695

    Foxy said:

    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.

    The role of Christian missionaries in colonialism is a complex one. Certainly traders, then soldiers followed the missionaries, and missionaries were also quite destructive of older cultures.

    They were the main promoters of education though, and nearly all anti-colonial leaders in the British Empire were schooled by missions. The fervency and Biblical knowledge of African congregations are something to be experienced.

    Definitely a mixed picture. My G G G Grandfather was one of the original teachers at Mico College in Jamaica, set up to train ex slaves as teachers and still one of the West Indies leading teaching institutions.
    Personally don't have much of a problem with missionaries per se, esp. those who demonstrated some true concern for the souls AND bodies of their target converts.

    HOWEVER, the Jesuits of Georgetown who bought and sold human beings, and disregarded even the feeble attempts by the Pope himself to mitigate their dealings, were NOT missionaries.

    And the people they almost literally sold down the river (they either shipped them down the coast, or marched them overland, hundreds of miles from home) were CATHOLICS, people whose people had been living in Maryland for two centuries under Catholic masters.
    Certainly so, and the Anglican Church owned some Barbados plantations too.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrington_Plantations
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I just don't really understand it. There's no mileage in sacking Rayner and Nandy. Rayner holds an elected post so she's always going to be of some importance in the party and Nandy seems to have been doing a pretty decent job and handled the lack of policy to work with reasonably well. In terms of representation it's an odd one becaus Labour are getting thumped in the north and sacking two northern MPs just strikes me as extremely tin eared.
    Totally agreed. 💯
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    edited May 2021
    Starmer's core issue is that he has the political antennae of a brick.

    Banging on about the PM finding private funding for his redecoration while the secondary news item were tens of thousands of Indians dying a day from Covid wasn't a great look..

    He could have maybe built a narrative around the southern gains but instead goes all psycho chainsaw massacre on all potential replacements (ie anyone with name recognition) including some of his, formerly, close allies. Oh, and kicking it all off by trying to sack the only person he can't sack.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Chameleon said:

    Starmer's core issue is that he has the political antennae of a brick.

    Banging on about the PM finding private funding for his redecoration while the secondary news item were tens of thousands of Indians dying a day from Covid.

    He could have maybe built a narrative around the southern gains, but instead goes all psycho chainsaw massacre on all potential replacements (ie anyone with name recognition), including some of his, formerly, close allies. Oh, and kicking it all off by trying to sack the only person he can't sack.

    He’s a Human Rights Lawyer trying to become popular by prosecuting Del Boy

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2021/04/prosecuting-del-boy.html
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
    He’s distracted people from their later good results by carrying on about their earlier bad ones!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,853
    Chameleon said:

    Starmer's core issue is that he has the political antennae of a brick.

    Banging on about the PM finding private funding for his redecoration while the secondary news item were tens of thousands of Indians dying a day from Covid.

    He could have maybe built a narrative around the southern gains, but instead goes all psycho chainsaw massacre on all potential replacements (ie anyone with name recognition), including some of his, formerly, close allies. Oh, and kicking it all off by trying to sack the only person he can't sack.

    Yeah the John Lewis stunt was a mistake. It might give Twitter wankers something to furiously masturbate about but the wider population just rolled its collective eyes. If anything he could have used the whole thing to show that Boris is unsuitable to be PM because he's constantly distracted from the important bits of the job.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.

    The role of Christian missionaries in colonialism is a complex one. Certainly traders, then soldiers followed the missionaries, and missionaries were also quite destructive of older cultures.

    They were the main promoters of education though, and nearly all anti-colonial leaders in the British Empire were schooled by missions. The fervency and Biblical knowledge of African congregations are something to be experienced.

    Definitely a mixed picture. My G G G Grandfather was one of the original teachers at Mico College in Jamaica, set up to train ex slaves as teachers and still one of the West Indies leading teaching institutions.
    Personally don't have much of a problem with missionaries per se, esp. those who demonstrated some true concern for the souls AND bodies of their target converts.

    HOWEVER, the Jesuits of Georgetown who bought and sold human beings, and disregarded even the feeble attempts by the Pope himself to mitigate their dealings, were NOT missionaries.

    And the people they almost literally sold down the river (they either shipped them down the coast, or marched them overland, hundreds of miles from home) were CATHOLICS, people whose people had been living in Maryland for two centuries under Catholic masters.
    Certainly so, and the Anglican Church owned some Barbados plantations too.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrington_Plantations
    Owning slave plantations was NOT good, esp. where the conditions were especially bad. But at least it could be (and indeed was) justified by a church that was born in a slave society (ancient Roman Empire) where human bondage of one type or another was common, even ubiquitous, a state of affairs continuing to one degree or another right up to the 19th century.

    Where it becomes actively, aggressively EVIL is when they sell their slaves, not to a neighbor or fellow clerics & others in holy orders, but down the river to unknown strangers, slave traders & slave drivers for top dollar.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
    He’s distracted people from their later good results by carrying on about their earlier bad ones!
    The latter good results ain't exactly spectacular, are they? Very small beer compared to their earlier loses. Not much of a figleaf.

    So distraction from actual election still a plus, short-term. Middle-to-long range???????
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Grant you, am trying to see what's what with the Strarmer Slaughter.

    On theory that there MAYBE is some method to the madness.

    Because clearly there's more than a little madness to the method!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
    He’s distracted people from their later good results by carrying on about their earlier bad ones!
    The latter good results ain't exactly spectacular, are they? Very small beer compared to their earlier loses. Not much of a figleaf.

    So distraction from actual election still a plus, short-term. Middle-to-long range???????
    Doubt there will be much of a middle to long range, he was a terrible choice as leader and is proving doubters right at every opportunity
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
    He’s distracted people from their later good results by carrying on about their earlier bad ones!
    The latter good results ain't exactly spectacular, are they? Very small beer compared to their earlier loses. Not much of a figleaf.

    So distraction from actual election still a plus, short-term. Middle-to-long range???????
    He could weave a narrative around them, saying that it's mostly just 2016's seats re-aligning. Indeed before this evening his position was largely still considered safe. Drawing attention away from poor locals by initiating a civil war and alienating all your allies feels like a distinctly Baldrickian plan.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,195
    MaxPB said:

    Chameleon said:

    Starmer's core issue is that he has the political antennae of a brick.

    Banging on about the PM finding private funding for his redecoration while the secondary news item were tens of thousands of Indians dying a day from Covid.

    He could have maybe built a narrative around the southern gains, but instead goes all psycho chainsaw massacre on all potential replacements (ie anyone with name recognition), including some of his, formerly, close allies. Oh, and kicking it all off by trying to sack the only person he can't sack.

    Yeah the John Lewis stunt was a mistake. It might give Twitter wankers something to furiously masturbate about but the wider population just rolled its collective eyes. If anything he could have used the whole thing to show that Boris is unsuitable to be PM because he's constantly distracted from the important bits of the job.
    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/boris-johnson-john-lewis-curtains-7942686

    Wallpapergate followed or preceeded the absolute human misery of India in the news. In addition it made Boris that most relatable of men, one whose other half is not quite happy with the decor ..
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Possible scenario?

    Mandy - "Look, everybody thinks you are a dweeble. Even your friends think you're under-whelming. You're going to get a right kicking from the voters on Poling Day, except in London and even there you're gonna take a hit. And when you do, your blood will be in the water, the sharks are already starting to circle."

    Keir - "OK, I'm up the creek apparently sans paddle. What can I do"

    Mandy - "You may NOT be surprised to learn that I've got a plan. Which begins by showing your friends, foes, rivals, the whole Labour Party and the entire freaking world that you may be hapless, you may be feckless, but you are NOT indecisive, NOT a pushover and most definitely ARE willing & able to fight. Otherwise you're a dead man walking."

    Or something like that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,409
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    Why Rayner?

    I don't get it. As elected Deputy she's pretty much untouchable, and now she effectively needs to be offered another Shadow Cabinet position - so why do it?

    It seems really odd.

    Jeez. He's United Corbynites and Blairites in thinking he's gone off his head. Now libertarian Tories like Philip and Max are joining in.
    I know Mandelson likes a big tent, but this is ridiculous
    I'm not joining in for what its worth, I'm just mightily confused. I don't see what the gameplay here is, sacking someone he intends to keep in his Shadow Cabinet. What's the plan there? 😕

    I don't even understand what he's trying to do with this one?
    Agree that things are at very best murky as hell, and you & others could well be right, that this is mad, bad or both. (Though one report claimed Rayner was plotting a ramp?)

    One thing though is, whatever Starmer's up to tonight, the TIMING is probably right.

    Because he's distracted a fair amount of attention from the truly dismal performance of the Labour Party under his watch, at his first election.

    Also could be said that he's struck hard & fast, clearly surprising his victims & foes AND (most) of his friends.

    AND it's clearly NOT in a fit of pique but rather calculated and planned. With perhaps the best strategist in the Labour Party, with possible exception of his grandfather, Herbert Morrison.
    He’s distracted people from their later good results by carrying on about their earlier bad ones!
    Spot on.
    The message for today. We won Wales. We won GM massively, West of England, Cambs. What a tremendous surprise! And London, too!
    Scotland was the story too.
    Move the narrative on from the horrors of Friday. Even if it is a bit straw clutching.
    Announce a panel of all wings of the Party to do a post mortem.
    It has been clear as a bell Burnham was going to win big. So go to Manchester and be the first to congratulate.
    Too simple?
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391102420525191181


    Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound)
    An old Labour chum messages: "The man is as fucking stupid as he is boring."
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Grant you, am trying to see what's what with the Strarmer Slaughter.

    On theory that there MAYBE is some method to the madness.

    Because clearly there's more than a little madness to the method!

    Perhaps its just desperation?

    Can't be seen to do nothing, so he's lashed out - and in the most incomprehensible manner because he's bloody useless.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Chameleon said:

    Starmer's core issue is that he has the political antennae of a brick.

    Banging on about the PM finding private funding for his redecoration while the secondary news item were tens of thousands of Indians dying a day from Covid.

    He could have maybe built a narrative around the southern gains, but instead goes all psycho chainsaw massacre on all potential replacements (ie anyone with name recognition), including some of his, formerly, close allies. Oh, and kicking it all off by trying to sack the only person he can't sack.

    Yeah the John Lewis stunt was a mistake. It might give Twitter wankers something to furiously masturbate about but the wider population just rolled its collective eyes. If anything he could have used the whole thing to show that Boris is unsuitable to be PM because he's constantly distracted from the important bits of the job.
    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/boris-johnson-john-lewis-curtains-7942686

    Wallpapergate followed or preceeded the absolute human misery of India in the news. In addition it made Boris that most relatable of men, one whose other half is not quite happy with the decor ..
    Though there are some hostage to Boris's fortune there.

    Do agree that wallpaper & throw pillows are NOT what you'd call the political kiss of death OR in anywhere the same league as human suffering AND successful jabbing.

    Also doubt that much of anything was, at least in retrospect, likely to dent Johnson's COVID bounce for THIS election. Which also helped Sturgeon & Drakeford, that is three ruling ministers from three different parties.

    The next election will be a different matter, however. And by then the drip-drip-drip of what-the-heck? MAY prove more damaging to Boris & the Tories. And more helpful to Labour & Starmer.

    IF either the Prime Minister and/or Leader of the Opposition is still in situ.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    Possible scenario?

    Mandy - "Look, everybody thinks you are a dweeble. Even your friends think you're under-whelming. You're going to get a right kicking from the voters on Poling Day, except in London and even there you're gonna take a hit. And when you do, your blood will be in the water, the sharks are already starting to circle."

    Keir - "OK, I'm up the creek apparently sans paddle. What can I do"

    Mandy - "You may NOT be surprised to learn that I've got a plan. Which begins by showing your friends, foes, rivals, the whole Labour Party and the entire freaking world that you may be hapless, you may be feckless, but you are NOT indecisive, NOT a pushover and most definitely ARE willing & able to fight. Otherwise you're a dead man walking."

    Or something like that.

    Yes, I could imagine something like that,

    it doesn't mean he has done it well, the timing fells bad, he could have wanted till all the results are in, in particular London. and why bring up the train ticket thing -that makes him look petty.

    Mandy may now be shaking his head thinning there is no point advising if the implantation is so bad.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,668
    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    edited May 2021

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    Excellent quip in the comments - "He is the son of a toolmaker and his father, good to his trade, manufactured a complete tool."
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    edited May 2021

    Grant you, am trying to see what's what with the Strarmer Slaughter.

    On theory that there MAYBE is some method to the madness.

    Because clearly there's more than a little madness to the method!

    Perhaps its just desperation?

    Can't be seen to do nothing, so he's lashed out - and in the most incomprehensible manner because he's bloody useless.
    While Starmer may be bloody useless, the jury is still out. Though yours truly is feeling like Henry Fonda at the start of "Twelve Angry Men"!

    As for desperation, could well be a touch of that. But presence of Mandelson also suggest some calculation.

    Whatever you wanna say about Mandy, he's savvier than your average bear. Also the kind who personally does NOT do desperation.

    He's sorta like a hot shot pilot flying a plane whose engines are sputtering and wing look to be ready to fall off. And his mind racing with thoughts.

    NOT oh God oh God save me save me we're all gonna die! But instead, WHAT the hell do I/we need to be doing to be getting out of this? And be flying high!
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    haven't seen that before, He sounded like Dave Brent form 'the Office' at times
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Chameleon said:

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    Excellent quip in the comments - "He is the son of a toolmaker and his father, good to his trade, manufactured a complete tool."
    Ouch! And touché.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    Labour just brought up the big 300 in losses. Cons up 230, Greens up 70.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    BigRich said:

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    haven't seen that before, He sounded like Dave Brent form 'the Office' at times
    Mandy - "See what I mean? They think you're lame as one-legged bloke with plantar fasciitis."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,050
    BigRich said:

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    haven't seen that before, He sounded like Dave Brent form 'the Office' at times
    He even does David Brent type actions, the pointing to his ear to say he listens and the "air quotes".
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Re: election management & observation, Cookie said something to the effect that, when he observed an election, things appeared to him quite well organized.

    Indeed, that is generally the impression that most people come to - often to their surprise - when the actually observe an actual election being counted.

    Have seen & heard it MANY times, at many elections in many places.

    Folks come down to election central (wherever it is) with all kinds of concerns, opinions, criticisms. Then after they've been there a while, had the process(es) explained, asked questions and observed the work AND the workers, they come away rather impressed. AND with some appreciation of the requirements, complexities and challenges involved in conducting a free and fair election.

    That's been my personal experience over 30 years plus, from Seattle to Dublin & back.

    And, in case you can't tell, I have a TREMENDOUS respect for election workers. Who are some of the hardest working, most conscientious and dedicated people I've ever met. Ditto patriot. Also frank and forthright, in an line of work where "gotcha!" is always a possibility.

    And were a politically-motivated mob can materialize, of whatever persuasion is behind in a very or even somewhat close election. Especially when the world is calling, crying, DEMANDING results half an hour ago, regardless of how many ballots or how many issues (like the COVID for instance) may crop up during the election and/or the count.

    For example, if you're the Secretary of State of Georgia! One year, the opposition party is calling you a fraudster; the next, your OWN party's calling you a fraud AND a traitor.

    And some people think it's all as easy as falling off a log.
  • CursingStoneCursingStone Posts: 421
    BigRich said:

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    haven't seen that before, He sounded like Dave Brent form 'the Office' at times
    If Starmer is David Brent, Boris is Neil, though a more shambolic Neil.
    To stretch the metaphor. David Brent is the Labour Party, and doesn’t understand why people like Neil Goodwin.
    https://youtu.be/p6Eaz-1_3iA
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    BigRich said:

    dixiedean said:

    @Philip_Thompson @MaxPB .
    No. I don't understand it either.
    I fear he just isn't very good at politics.

    The interview that FrancisUrquart posted earlier is pretty bad. He just comes across as out of his depth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXrZKSNWN0
    haven't seen that before, He sounded like Dave Brent form 'the Office' at times
    If Starmer is David Brent, Boris is Neil, though a more shambolic Neil.
    To stretch the metaphor. David Brent is the Labour Party, and doesn’t understand why people like Neil Goodwin.
    https://youtu.be/p6Eaz-1_3iA
    Must say, you DO have a point. Thanks for this!

    Esp. as your truly had NOT seen the real "The Office" just the American knockoff which, save for a few characters & actors (not Steve Carrell) was not the hot IMHO.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Some discouraging news about - and for - Seattle's stormy petrel & Socialist Alternative

    Seattle Time ($) City Councilmember Kshama Sawant admits violating ethics code, fueling recall effort

    . . . In a Friday settlement agreement with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, Sawant admitted to improperly using city money, employees and other resources to support a proposed ballot measure. She also agreed to pay the city $3,516, twice the amount of city funds she spent to advance the measure to create a payroll tax on big businesses like Amazon.

    Sawant’s admission that she violated city ethics and elections codes confirms one of three charges now being made by the recall effort.

    “She has denied it, denied it, and now she comes forward to admit that she actually did break the law. And that’s huge,” said [Henry] Bridger, a Capitol Hill resident serving as chair and campaign manager of Recall Sawant. He said he planned to tell people about it as he asked for their signatures.

    Bridger also said recall supporters are demanding Sawant resign. She would otherwise be up for reelection in 2023.

    Sawant and an aide did not return messages Saturday seeking comment. . .

    COMMENT - Kshama Sawant is one of the Seattle city councilmembers that Jeff Bezos help election in 2019 by spending a HUGE amount of money trying to defeat them, for badmouthing him AND trying to raise Amazon's taxes. In Sawant''s case, based on the primary results she was on the ropes- until Bezos & his bucks bailed her out, by convincing voters NOT that she had to go, but that HE was trying to buy the election, which of course he was.

    And the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission is the same independent city agency that just issued a report accusing the legal counsel (on city payroll) of Mayor Jenny Durkan of improper conduct in trying to hide fact that city IT dept lost months of the mayor's text messages (during civil unrest in wake of George Floyd's murder).

    In other words, SEEC has called out and chastised the city establishment AND the Socialist Alternative which (contrary to what Trumpky & many others seem to think) is NOT the establishment in this town.

    All-in-all, pretty interesting backdrop to 2021 elections for mayor, city attorney and two at-large city council seats. Durkan is NOT running for re-election (the lost texts likely one reason). As for Sawant, she MAY be on the ballot IF the recall is successful. Whatever happens on that front, this all will impact the other races.

    Candidate filing is May 17 - 21; ballots for the August 3 primary will be mailed to voters on July 14, Bastille Day. Which may or may not prove appropriate!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,567
    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    What are the dates, please?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,050
    edited May 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    More headaches for Starmer. Odds on that Labour will not win any of those by-elections, in fact they could get a walloping in all of them.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,706
    This seems astonishing. Per Sunday Times:

    Team Starmer knows he is responsible in part, although they also feel they inherited an “empty husk” of a party from Jeremy Corbyn. His legacy means that, according to party insiders, the local elections were only the party’s fourth highest budget priority when David Evans, the party’s general secretary, took over. A source said: “Most of the budget had been earmarked for statutory investigations and legal cases by former members of staff.”
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    MikeL said:

    This seems astonishing. Per Sunday Times:

    Team Starmer knows he is responsible in part, although they also feel they inherited an “empty husk” of a party from Jeremy Corbyn. His legacy means that, according to party insiders, the local elections were only the party’s fourth highest budget priority when David Evans, the party’s general secretary, took over. A source said: “Most of the budget had been earmarked for statutory investigations and legal cases by former members of staff.”

    Wow. Hit the like button, for MikeL for relaying this.

    Don't much like the substance. And what priority were Scotland & Wales, or were they part of the same ball of crap as the English locals, budget & priority-wise?
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Harpenden and Amersham are turning yellow.

    Oil seed rape coming into flower?
    It’s called rapeseed these days - too many complaints
    Oil seed rape is what's grown to produce rape seed oil.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    More headaches for Starmer. Odds on that Labour will not win any of those by-elections, in fact they could get a walloping in all of them.
    I suspect that they will keep Batley & Spen - assuming the current turmoil settles down....
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,567
    felix said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    More headaches for Starmer. Odds on that Labour will not win any of those by-elections, in fact they could get a walloping in all of them.
    I suspect that they will keep Batley & Spen - assuming the current turmoil settles down....
    Batley & Spen will probably be the sort of very close result that a lot of us initially thought Hartlepool would be.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,567

    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    What are the dates, please?
    Airdrie and Shotts is next Thursday. No dates have been set for Chesham and Amersham AFAIK.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,201
    felix said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Tomorrow the West Yorkshire mayoral election result will be announced. Tracey Brabin is expected to win, which will trigger a by-election in Batley & Spen. There are already going to be by-elections in Airdrie & Shotts and Chesham & Amersham.

    More headaches for Starmer. Odds on that Labour will not win any of those by-elections, in fact they could get a walloping in all of them.
    I suspect that they will keep Batley & Spen - assuming the current turmoil settles down....
    Quite fun that the Tory candidate in Amersham is Mr Fleet the Group Vice-President of Ford.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Second prefs:

    Khan 192,313 => 1,206,034
    Bailey 84,550 => 977,601

    Khan 55.23%
    Bailey 44.77%

    2016 result was Khan 56.8%, Goldsmith 43.2%.

    Swing from Lab to Con: 1.6%

    Despite all the patronising criticism of them then, both Shaun Bailey and RT have got a swing to the Tories since 2016
    Thanks to Boris, not themselves.
    And remember in London the base is Goldsmith’s dire and widely criticised campaign.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The state of this:

    I was asked last night if I was going to be heading Labour’s policy review & said:

    “I would be delighted to if asked. But suspect I'm far too radical because I believe in real, substantial change, & so far changes have been cosmetic in the Labour Party under Keir’s leadership”


    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1391264658724642816?s=20
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,201

    Christianity & Slavery - Georgetown University has a rather checkered past (to put it mildly)

    From wiki - 1838 Jesuit slave sale

    In 1838, 272 men, women, and children were sold by the Maryland Jesuits; a portion of the proceeds was used to pay the debts of Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), also run by the Jesuits. The slaves had lived on plantations belonging to the Jesuits in Maryland, and they were sold to Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey. T

    The sale price was $115,000, equivalent to $2,761,078 in 2019. Of the $25,000 down-payment, $17,000 was used to pay down building debt that Thomas F. Mulledy, the provincial superior who orchestrated the sale, had accrued as president of Georgetown College.

    The slaves sold by the Jesuits were part of the West Oak and Chatham Plantations, in Louisiana, both of which would later change ownership. None of the terms for the sale, directed from the Catholic Church leadership in Rome, were met. These terms included that there be no familial separation, that the proceeds not be used to pay debt or the operating expenses of the college, and that the religious practice of the enslaved people be supported. . . .

    Many descendants of these enslaved people (sometimes known as the "GU272") presently live in and around Maringouin, Louisiana. . . .

    Note - My sister lives just a few miles from Maringouin in south-central Louisiana.

    Thank-you for this history lesson.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,794
    Good morning, everyone.

    Cheers to Mr. Away, for his Count Binface tips.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    NEW ThREaD
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Worth a read - John Curtice:

    Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.

    The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.


    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12228
  • Nunu3Nunu3 Posts: 224

    Labour's seat count has held up well across West Yorkshire.

    Woke and BAME combo staying loyal?

    High Muslim population
This discussion has been closed.