Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
I guess we rushed the development of the Spitfire.
I guess so and thank god that we did.
Thank God for Miss Shillings Orifice
Which was down to Rolls and RAE managing to ignoring the facts about fuel injection. Which was almost as stupid as the US Army Air Corps idea that you could simplify engines by mandating a single stage supercharger.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
Well can't answer for other boo'ers only myself I would boo in the unlikely event I went to a football match purely because I think it splits us more than unites us. It is very much an us and them gesture as tres has illustrated...if you arent for us you are the enemy with no nuance.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
Let me give you a true example from my work. I have to write the minutes of a weekly meeting by the end of the same week. Normally I'd do it over the week and send it in on Friday. I'd get on with other things during the week and take my time with it.
However last week I was going on leave on Tuesday so on Monday I sat down for two or three solid hours and got it done before I left.
That was certainly expedited or sped up but it wasn't rushed. I just condensed my time and delayed some other things.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
Perhaps the knee thing and booing are both different versions of virtue signalling. It could well be that lots of quieter people think that both are a bit off, and that neither display much character or real goodness. Lots of people hate passive aggressive, toe curling forms of compulsion and equally hate booing anything that even might be sincere or doing your best.
Boris, who has genius antennae, SFAICS, praises neither group. I think he is right.
Looks like a wave form to me. I pray thanks to,vaccine it can be so much smaller than previous. But experts who say that ain’t a wave do have to explain how something that looks like a wave isn’t
Is anyone really disputing that it is a wave?
What they are disputing is
1) that it will reach anything like the levels of previous waves and (more importantly) 2) that it will result in a significant new wave of hospitalisations, serious illness and deaths.
Upon which the jury is very much out (unless it has already ruled “not guilty m’lud)
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
Looks like a wave form to me. I pray thanks to,vaccine it can be so much smaller than previous. But experts who say that ain’t a wave do have to explain how something that looks like a wave isn’t
Is anyone really disputing that it is a wave?
What they are disputing is
1) that it will reach anything like the levels of previous waves and (more importantly) 2) that it will result in a significant new wave of hospitalisations, serious illness and deaths.
Upon which the jury is very much out (unless it has already ruled “not guilty m’lud)
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I think you have ever posted.
Yes, perhaps it is, but on the other hand such a radical devil's advocate position does generate real discussion of what we* want from universities, or indeed wider education. I might try to work my abolition idea up into a header if I get a quiet weekend.
*and who is "we" in this context? Is it students, faculty, parents, government, wider society?
The only problem with any discussion of fundamental change towards a smaller or no university sector is it is never going to happen. No government is going to tell the voters we need to roll them right back, we don't need ~150 full time establishments all trying to sell the dream they are offering an equal product, instead pivoting to more on job training, more part time study at community college, etc.
It would instantly get shut down as discriminatory and fundamentally unfair....even if a more balance approach may well be optimal, especially if more jobs were offered as not requiring a degree.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Your comment @RochdalePioneers exemplifies - consciously or unconsciously - why Labour is having problems with WWC Red Wallers. Your assumption that “they actively sought and voted for regressive politics” is the - pardon the pun - Black and White view that is taken by groups such as BLM ie if you are not with us, you are against you. While there are undoubted racists, there are also a lot who sit in the Grey zone - they recognise racism exists and dislike it but don’t like being told they are privileged and / or “deserve” to be discriminated against because of their whiteness, especially as many of them are poor themselves.
I'm not in Labour remember and frankly having spent 15 years in the red wall in a town riddled with social deprivation I get what they have done. I am not sneering at them - their perspective is that "progressive" politics is every other group than them getting attention and money whilst they start with nothing and watch their community stay dirt poor.
This is why there are so many right wing independent groups formed in these kinds of areas. They can't stand Labour, they don't trust the Tories, so time to do it yourself.
I think that is broadly right but it’s not just the every other group getting the goodies, it’s also the feeling that they are being constantly sneered at and pushed aside. That is probably a stronger motivation to turn against Labour.
If you want a small example of this, look at the adverts going on for the Wales-Italy game on TV. There are plenty of adverts - in fact, virtually all - that feature non-white characters and, in the case of brands like Nike and (less so) Adidas pushing an agenda. Try counting the number of WWC characters in them.
Yup - thats what they think and they are of course wrong. We're seeing companies advertising diversity because that is society but until very recently you would never guess looking at adverts.
The idea that WWC men are being discriminated against is laughable. They're white and they're male - thats a major advantage that so many people don't have when being discriminated against by white men.
There absolutely is an issue with education and attainment and mobility for the WWC. Sorry but much of this is self-inflicted. Talk to people who work in primary schools in WWC areas at the absolute pond scum that kids have as parents. Some of them are thick and poor because they make themselves so. Some of them feel pushed out by forrin labour because they are too lazy to work. Sorry, but someone has to call them out.
I see @Yokes has beaten me to it but, ironically, you’ve adopted the tactics of the likes of the BNP especially in the “Sorry but someone has to call them out”, which is the sort of statement you’d expect to hear from someone explaining why it is acceptable to think Afro-Caribbean Black people are more prone to crime or Pakistani taxi drivers are all child rapists. It’s the sweeping, prejudicial, condemning attitude. You may not be Labour now but you are, for many WWC, the epitome of what they hate about people on the left wing.
Meh. Alternatively I am "people on the left wing" Peter Lilley or Norman Tebbitt who make the same point. As do many in the WWC who hate scroungers.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
Perhaps the knee thing and booing are both different versions of virtue signalling. It could well be that lots of quieter people think that both are a bit off, and that neither display much character or real goodness. Lots of people hate passive aggressive, toe curling forms of compulsion and equally hate booing anything that even might be sincere or doing your best.
Boris, who has genius antennae, SFAICS, praises neither group. I think he is right.
I suspect you are right. Anyway I for one will still be in the bar downstairs at goodison while it is going on as I simply can’t be arsed with it.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
When you are young everything is black and white is all, as you age you start to see shades of grey. All sides have good bits and bad bits. When you only see in black and white you ignore the bad for the white side and ignore the good for the black side. It is my objection to woke they try to turn everything into black or white
Looks like a wave form to me. I pray thanks to,vaccine it can be so much smaller than previous. But experts who say that ain’t a wave do have to explain how something that looks like a wave isn’t
Is anyone really disputing that it is a wave?
What they are disputing is
1) that it will reach anything like the levels of previous waves and (more importantly) 2) that it will result in a significant new wave of hospitalisations, serious illness and deaths.
Upon which the jury is very much out (unless it has already ruled “not guilty m’lud)
But anyway the problem is with the definition of “wave”. Is there one that is universally agreed upon? I haven’t seen any sign of it! You can have a wave of cases without having a wave of hospitalisations. Or of deaths.
And it also makes a bit of a difference whether you determine any such “waves” as significant or not.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
Surely the small minority who boo do so because the people whose wages they think they pay are sick of their racism and they don't like having the mirror held up.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
The problem is not that people decide they dont want the vaccine, thats a choice and the libertarian in me wouldnt like compulsion, especially since voluntary uptake is very high
The problem with some refusniks is the why. I know one person who has rejected it and they are into the wider Looney Toon movement, that believes Trump was due to retake power about 3 times since January and so on. The maddening nature of it is its zealotry, a kind of direct inverse to the politicised madness masquerading as science of Independent Sage.
No attempt to elicit sensible consideration is possible.
It’s not the inverse - far from it. The zerocovidian credo of iSage is just a branch line of antivaxism.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
I think this the first thing that you have posted that I would substantially agree with (though a Medical Degree differs in many aspects).
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
Looks like a wave form to me. I pray thanks to,vaccine it can be so much smaller than previous. But experts who say that ain’t a wave do have to explain how something that looks like a wave isn’t
Is anyone really disputing that it is a wave?
What they are disputing is
1) that it will reach anything like the levels of previous waves and (more importantly) 2) that it will result in a significant new wave of hospitalisations, serious illness and deaths.
Upon which the jury is very much out (unless it has already ruled “not guilty m’lud)
But anyway the problem is with the definition of “wave”. Is there one that is universally agreed upon? I haven’t seen any sign of it! You can have a wave of cases without having a wave of hospitalisations. Or of deaths.
And it also makes a bit of a difference whether you determine any such “waves” as significant or not.
That is an excellent point. Does it have to reach a certain height to be a wave, or be a ripple? Or match other criteria?
The most obvious sign is a chart that goes up and down three times in wave form, so three waves?
Does it matter the third one is not natural, was avoidable until seeded by your own government through border policy, does that discount it as wave. 😕
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
the antifascist thing is just doublethink. Its like anti racism.
The 'woke' are racist (in that they continually emphasise racial differences, and attribute whiteness to all sorts of undesirable and evil behaviour) and incorporate many elements of fascism in their activism, ie use of violence, forcible supression of opinion. They are neither antiracist or antifascist.
One of my friends mentioned downthread has texted me again:
"Sister, dad, mum, step dad, cousin are all anti-vax"
Imagine the familial pressure on him? He's basically the only one sane.
And his family is well-educated, degrees everywhere, step-father an architect in Germany...
I don't get it. This isn't some half-baked unsafe rush-job being forced on people for no reason. This is a global calamity and the jab is the only way to get it under control.
It is perfectly sane to refuse any vaccine.
And it certainly is rushed.
What is the timeframe vs other vaccine development timeframes?
It’s not rushed in the sense of all the usual stages of testing have been done and we are now in stage IV testing (mass use, into the many millions). Could there be long term effects that we haven’t foreseen? Sure, anything is possible. But is it likely? Vanishingly small chance of a long term issue, and we are using phase IV trials to find the side effects that show in the short term ( such as clotting, that has sadly killed a tiny proportion of those who have had one of the vaccines).
I also asked what the timeframe was of these vs other vaccines. In those terms, ie in vaccine development timeframe terms it has been rushed.
And who is anyone to say someone should take a risk no matter how small?
I am not sure that you can say 'in vaccine development timeframe terms it has been rushed'. We simply have new technologies (genomics, computational biology, synthetic biology, massive computing power, proteomics) that enable us to design a vaccine in qualitatively different ways than we did in the past that shorten that stage of design from years to days.
For the rest - phases of the trials - they have followed the protocols as I understand them, albeit with an urgency and with red tape removed. That does not make it 'rushed' in the sense of 'diminished quality'.
The vaccines weren't new either - the basic infrastructure (so to speak) was there, with the specific target (COVID) added in.
Many new drugs are created very rapidly - the lengthy process of approval and manufacturing setup is not a requirement, but a traditional process, with lots of scope for speeding up.
"Lengthy process of approval..."
ie this one was rushed vs normal.
Look it's fine thank god they rushed it imo. But it was rushed.
So what ? The vaccines had been tested as extensively as any before approval - and by now more so than almost any.
Maybe Hungary won't get the Euro finals after all... apparently UEFA investigating dodgy banners, homophobic and against taking the knee and complaints of monkey chants.
One of my friends mentioned downthread has texted me again:
"Sister, dad, mum, step dad, cousin are all anti-vax"
Imagine the familial pressure on him? He's basically the only one sane.
And his family is well-educated, degrees everywhere, step-father an architect in Germany...
I don't get it. This isn't some half-baked unsafe rush-job being forced on people for no reason. This is a global calamity and the jab is the only way to get it under control.
It is perfectly sane to refuse any vaccine.
And it certainly is rushed.
What is the timeframe vs other vaccine development timeframes?
It’s not rushed in the sense of all the usual stages of testing have been done and we are now in stage IV testing (mass use, into the many millions). Could there be long term effects that we haven’t foreseen? Sure, anything is possible. But is it likely? Vanishingly small chance of a long term issue, and we are using phase IV trials to find the side effects that show in the short term ( such as clotting, that has sadly killed a tiny proportion of those who have had one of the vaccines).
I also asked what the timeframe was of these vs other vaccines. In those terms, ie in vaccine development timeframe terms it has been rushed.
And who is anyone to say someone should take a risk no matter how small?
I am not sure that you can say 'in vaccine development timeframe terms it has been rushed'. We simply have new technologies (genomics, computational biology, synthetic biology, massive computing power, proteomics) that enable us to design a vaccine in qualitatively different ways than we did in the past that shorten that stage of design from years to days.
For the rest - phases of the trials - they have followed the protocols as I understand them, albeit with an urgency and with red tape removed. That does not make it 'rushed' in the sense of 'diminished quality'.
The vaccines weren't new either - the basic infrastructure (so to speak) was there, with the specific target (COVID) added in.
Many new drugs are created very rapidly - the lengthy process of approval and manufacturing setup is not a requirement, but a traditional process, with lots of scope for speeding up.
"Lengthy process of approval..."
ie this one was rushed vs normal.
Look it's fine thank god they rushed it imo. But it was rushed.
So what ? The vaccines had been tested as extensively as any before approval - and by now more so than almost any.
What’s your substantive criticism ?
He wants to associate "COVID Vaccines" with "Rushed"
No other words for accelerated timelines will do, apparently...
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I think you have ever posted.
Yes, perhaps it is, but on the other hand such a radical devil's advocate position does generate real discussion of what we* want from universities, or indeed wider education. I might try to work my abolition idea up into a header if I get a quiet weekend.
*and who is "we" in this context? Is it students, faculty, parents, government, wider society?
The only problem with any discussion of fundamental change towards a smaller or no university sector is it is never going to happen. No government is going to tell the voters we need to roll them right back, we don't need ~150 full time establishments all trying to sell the dream they are offering an equal product, instead pivoting to more on job training, more part time study at community college, etc.
It would instantly get shut down as discriminatory and fundamentally unfair....even if a more balance approach may well be optimal, especially if more jobs were offered as not requiring a degree.
Sure, I am not expecting such a Maoist approach to be implemented by any mainstream party, any more than abolishing the NHS would be. It doesn't mean that discussing it is of no value.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
60-61 AD was a lot more than a thousand years ago, and 1955-68 rather lass than a thousand years.
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
60-61 AD was a lot more than a thousand years ago, and 1955-68 rather lass than a thousand years.
I was referring to the druid thing only. I had pointed out earlier on that like the swastika the black power salute and the taking the knee had been appropriated by the marxist BLM movement and like pepe the frog got cancelled because some far right groups used it we need to regard it in the same light
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
60-61 AD was a lot more than a thousand years ago, and 1955-68 rather lass than a thousand years.
Is that not close to ignoring the degree the past is with us today, shaped how we communicate and live with the tensions and divisions we do?
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
“The usual”…
We have a new flu vaccine every year. Is that rushed ?
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
I think this the first thing that you have posted that I would substantially agree with (though a Medical Degree differs in many aspects).
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
Sounds very interesting - it is the universities loss, as I am sure you would have made a good academic. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that universities are no different to corporations in that they are power structures, but they just operate on slightly different rules; I worked out early on that I would only get ahead by playing the game, having talent and ability alone was not going to get me very far.
I do recommend as I have to others on this board before that you read Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, if you haven't yet, it explains very well the intellectual decline that has taken place in universities over the past 30 /40 years, and the problems it has led to with the 'woke'.
Maybe Hungary won't get the Euro finals after all... apparently UEFA investigating dodgy banners, homophobic and against taking the knee and complaints of monkey chants.
The decision will be determined entirely by financial interests and nothing else. One suspects that LGBTQIA etc. etc. wasn't the first item on the agenda when the World Cup was awarded to Russia. And Qatar. I doubt that UEFA is very much different to FIFA in this regard.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
Maybe Hungary won't get the Euro finals after all... apparently UEFA investigating dodgy banners, homophobic and against taking the knee and complaints of monkey chants.
The decision will be determined entirely by financial interests and nothing else. One suspects that LGBTQIA etc. etc. wasn't the first item on the agenda when the World Cup was awarded to Russia. And Qatar. I doubt that UEFA is very much different to FIFA in this regard.
How dare you suggest UEFA aren't driven by as IKEA would put it their humanatarist values.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
It is true that in many universities, avoiding a 1st or 2.1 now requires even more heroic measures* than avoiding an Iron Cross (2nd Class) in the portion of the Imperial German Army commanded by the Crown Prince during WWI
*It was said that suicide was the only way to avoid an EK-II
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
The answer is simple we judge living people on what they do now. Antifa believe in violence against those that dont share their views that makes them fascist. Luther King did not support violence, he went more the gandhi route but that was still 60 years in the past and we cant judge him by todays standards he lived in a far far different world.
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Is this the Sam Harris with a special interest in psychedelics and lives in California?
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
No you missed the point. Is it impossible for someone who has never made monkey noises ever and doesn’t regard him/herself as racist to get upset by being called racist?
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
No you missed the point. Is it impossible for someone who has never made monkey noises ever and doesn’t regard him/herself as racist to get upset by being called racist?
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
If you aren't racist then you'd want racism out of football. Which is what the players want. They aren't branding all their fans racists, they are branding the racists racist because they are racist.
The sport is trying to draw a firm line because decades on from the few black players being widely abused there are still stubborn pockets of racist fans at it. If racists want to boo being called out as racists then they need to be called out. It isn't acceptable.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
The answer is simple we judge living people on what they do now. Antifa believe in violence against those that dont share their views that makes them fascist. Luther King did not support violence, he went more the gandhi route but that was still 60 years in the past and we cant judge him by todays standards he lived in a far far different world.
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I do have a problem with the far more civilised age thing. Some little pockets of earth may be jam and Jerusalem today, whilst others aren’t. No guarantee it will always be the case.
The whole discussion is about intolerance? I’m asking is intolerance built into and handed down through history, to cause the intolerance today? And if it’s not a black and white answer, then to what degree?
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Is this the Sam Harris with a special interest in psychedelics and lives in California?
He’s just a data point. One of many at this stage.
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
No you missed the point. Is it impossible for someone who has never made monkey noises ever and doesn’t regard him/herself as racist to get upset by being called racist?
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
If you aren't racist then you'd want racism out of football. Which is what the players want. They aren't branding all their fans racists, they are branding the racists racist because they are racist.
The sport is trying to draw a firm line because decades on from the few black players being widely abused there are still stubborn pockets of racist fans at it. If racists want to boo being called out as racists then they need to be called out. It isn't acceptable.
That may well be the honourable intention, but does it work just like that? In much the same way, you would call a classroom without a flag an unpatriotic classroom? Someone who doesn’t heartily sign God Save the Queen can be anti monarchist.
From England footballers through to Sky Sports kick it out, they can decide for themselves, but can’t decide for others how they choose to oppose racism. That’s the contention isn’t it?
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
I think this the first thing that you have posted that I would substantially agree with (though a Medical Degree differs in many aspects).
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
30 years ago the LSE test for whether you wee suitable, as an overseas student, for admission, was whether you could pay the fees. That said, the Norwegians had better English than many of the locals. I expect the increased reliance on Chinese money (and Libyan...) has not improved the academic ethos.
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Is this the Sam Harris with a special interest in psychedelics and lives in California?
Harris took a very different line in the recent podcast he did with physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson - said the media had been stupidly credulous with all this recent UFO stuff and hadn't given enough time to sceptical voices.
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Is this the Sam Harris with a special interest in psychedelics and lives in California?
Harris took a very different line in the recent podcast he did with physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson - said the media had been stupidly credulous with all this recent UFO stuff and hadn't given enough time to sceptical voices.
Looks like a number of US private equity firms are circling to buy Morrisons.
All about the property assets
At anything below about £7bn I expect the property assets alone would cover the purchase price.
It's Morrison's though so it really wouldn't surprise me if Amazon wasn't running their slide rule over it - albeit I wonder what clauses exist to protect Ocado in those circumstances.
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
No you missed the point. Is it impossible for someone who has never made monkey noises ever and doesn’t regard him/herself as racist to get upset by being called racist?
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
If you aren't racist then you'd want racism out of football. Which is what the players want. They aren't branding all their fans racists, they are branding the racists racist because they are racist.
The sport is trying to draw a firm line because decades on from the few black players being widely abused there are still stubborn pockets of racist fans at it. If racists want to boo being called out as racists then they need to be called out. It isn't acceptable.
That may well be the honourable intention, but does it work just like that? In much the same way, you would call a classroom without a flag an unpatriotic classroom? Someone who doesn’t heartily sign God Save the Queen can be anti monarchist.
From England footballers through to Sky Sports kick it out, they can decide for themselves, but can’t decide for others how they choose to oppose racism. That’s the contention isn’t it?
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Nothing? After all, if they've been wandering about doing stuff for at least 70 years, we might as well start with a working assumption that they are benign. Or if we're really lucky, getting ready to intervene only if we look like completely destroying ourselves.
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Is this the Sam Harris with a special interest in psychedelics and lives in California?
Harris took a very different line in the recent podcast he did with physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson - said the media had been stupidly credulous with all this recent UFO stuff and hadn't given enough time to sceptical voices.
That quote was from a couple of days ago
Yes, and taken massively out of context. Harris and deGrasse Tyson agreed it was all a load of bunk.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
The answer is simple we judge living people on what they do now. Antifa believe in violence against those that dont share their views that makes them fascist. Luther King did not support violence, he went more the gandhi route but that was still 60 years in the past and we cant judge him by todays standards he lived in a far far different world.
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I do have a problem with the far more civilised age thing. Some little pockets of earth may be jam and Jerusalem today, whilst others aren’t. No guarantee it will always be the case.
The whole discussion is about intolerance? I’m asking is intolerance built into and handed down through history, to cause the intolerance today? And if it’s not a black and white answer, then to what degree?
Is that an idiotic question?
Yes I should have qualified it by saying in most of the west we live in a world where women, black, asian,transgender etc we pretty much accept each other and rub along. Our disagreements are with the extremists on all sides whether its white supremacists or antifa etc. What happened 60 or 600 years ago isn't relevant. We are here now and what we need to avoid, because this is how we got to this place, is shutting down views with violence even when we disagree with them
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
Nothing? After all, if they've been wandering about doing stuff for at least 70 years, we might as well start with a working assumption that they are benign. Or if we're really lucky, getting ready to intervene only if we look like completely destroying ourselves.
Not sure what else we can do...?
Your response is a typical one. But you have to recognise that it wouldn’t be universally shared. Which is what makes this story potentially such a compelling one - its very hard to predict what such knowledge would do to society.
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
I think this the first thing that you have posted that I would substantially agree with (though a Medical Degree differs in many aspects).
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
Sounds very interesting - it is the universities loss, as I am sure you would have made a good academic. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that universities are no different to corporations in that they are power structures, but they just operate on slightly different rules; I worked out early on that I would only get ahead by playing the game, having talent and ability alone was not going to get me very far.
I do recommend as I have to others on this board before that you read Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, if you haven't yet, it explains very well the intellectual decline that has taken place in universities over the past 30 /40 years, and the problems it has led to with the 'woke'.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that having a non-vocational degree is already a waste of time and money, it costs a fortune and mostly involves indoctrination in to political ideology - with declining employment opportunities at the end of it.
It depends on what you get and where.
A 2.1 or 1st from a Russell Group university (or foreign equivalent) is seen as showing* that the candidate is bright and capable of learning. Hence the requirement for such degrees in high end jobs.
A degree from a lesser** institution will get you a job that 20 years ago would have gone to a bright school leaver. This is probably what Angela Rayner is talking about.
The simple truth is that the credentialism boom has shut off access to better jobs for many - no more literal barrow boys in the City.
*I don't agree with this entirely, but that is how things are. **That's how it's seen
My impression of the universities is that they have gone downhill badly. I went to a Russell group uni circa 15 years ago and there were foreign students who were paying vast sums for the experience and they could barely spell or communicate in english, some were turning out work that was almost at primary school level, for which they would recieve a pass, so as to keep the income coming in, to provide jobs for left wing academics to spew out what was increasingly becoming political propoganda.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
I think this the first thing that you have posted that I would substantially agree with (though a Medical Degree differs in many aspects).
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
Sounds very interesting - it is the universities loss, as I am sure you would have made a good academic. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that universities are no different to corporations in that they are power structures, but they just operate on slightly different rules; I worked out early on that I would only get ahead by playing the game, having talent and ability alone was not going to get me very far.
I do recommend as I have to others on this board before that you read Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, if you haven't yet, it explains very well the intellectual decline that has taken place in universities over the past 30 /40 years, and the problems it has led to with the 'woke'.
I shall look it up.
I don't think though that universities are in intellectual decline, though perhaps diluted by over expansion so much as following intellectual fashion as they always have. Like other fashions there is a lot of froth and absurdity alongside more substantial social trends.
I do think that the centralised nature of university campuses is obsolete, as the last year has shown, and online distance type learning is a very reasonable alternative. Far from being a problem, this is liberating, opening up the possibilities of modular learning integrated with work, or other universities, anywhere in the world. It also opens up the possibility of Academics leading modules from outside of a formal university setting.
I don't think that I could have worked as a University Academic in the current setting, it is far to constricting.
How can I put this. BLM threatens racists from being able to continue being racist and acting like they are the victims. Call them fascist if you like. I don't think they care.
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
What if they boo because they don’t regard themselves as racist and are getting worked up by the implication they are being called racist? Where then and with whom does problem lie?
Absolutely. Football should stop making a fuss when fans make monkey noises. They're not racist.
No you missed the point. Is it impossible for someone who has never made monkey noises ever and doesn’t regard him/herself as racist to get upset by being called racist?
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
If you aren't racist then you'd want racism out of football. Which is what the players want. They aren't branding all their fans racists, they are branding the racists racist because they are racist.
The sport is trying to draw a firm line because decades on from the few black players being widely abused there are still stubborn pockets of racist fans at it. If racists want to boo being called out as racists then they need to be called out. It isn't acceptable.
That may well be the honourable intention, but does it work just like that? In much the same way, you would call a classroom without a flag an unpatriotic classroom? Someone who doesn’t heartily sign God Save the Queen can be anti monarchist.
From England footballers through to Sky Sports kick it out, they can decide for themselves, but can’t decide for others how they choose to oppose racism. That’s the contention isn’t it?
Choose your side...
If I sit there silently through it, what is inferred? If I don’t have the national flag in my classroom, what is inferred? If I don’t heartily sing God save the Queen, what is inferred? If I don’t wear a poppy, what is inferred? If I don’t join Boris in clapping for carers, what is inferred
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
A record low of between 66 and 68%! We'd be lucky to get that.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
The answer is simple we judge living people on what they do now. Antifa believe in violence against those that dont share their views that makes them fascist. Luther King did not support violence, he went more the gandhi route but that was still 60 years in the past and we cant judge him by todays standards he lived in a far far different world.
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I do have a problem with the far more civilised age thing. Some little pockets of earth may be jam and Jerusalem today, whilst others aren’t. No guarantee it will always be the case.
The whole discussion is about intolerance? I’m asking is intolerance built into and handed down through history, to cause the intolerance today? And if it’s not a black and white answer, then to what degree?
Is that an idiotic question?
Yes I should have qualified it by saying in most of the west we live in a world where women, black, asian,transgender etc we pretty much accept each other and rub along. Our disagreements are with the extremists on all sides whether its white supremacists or antifa etc. What happened 60 or 600 years ago isn't relevant. We are here now and what we need to avoid, because this is how we got to this place, is shutting down views with violence even when we disagree with them
So you won’t be joining us in the ultra violent resistance movement when the fascists take over then? 😕
Or, if you are wrong about the past being irrelevant and our lack of freedom can be inherited from the past, that we are in a good place there is no reason to protest, we won’t see you down the demonstration anytime soon then?
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
A record low of between 66 and 68%! We'd be lucky to get that.
No, that's the abstention rate! - 32-34% voted. At previous regionals it was 50+.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
The irony of it all is lost on some people. Antifa was set up to defeat fascism. If you are a fascist, you boo it…
There’s a war on you know.
But antifa are fascist
They call themselves anti fascist. So what have you got to support “antifa are fascist”
Well they agree with using violence on anyone that doesn't share their views for a start. Remember the youtube video of the right wing supporter getting punched to the ground by an antifa member and all the supportive comments. Seems a pretty fascist thing to me
I’m not sure. Could that not be a communist beating up a fascist?
Just because they call themselves antifascist doesnt make them so any more than the DDR was democratic. They are intolerant assholes that believe any viewpoint but there own is deserving of violence. There are numerous examples on youtube of them applauding violence against those that dissent.
What about the violence which drove the Druid’s into the sea? That burn the Pagan tree groves and Temples? Is Martin Luther King, with his kneeling, with his religion owning that past an “intolerant asshole?”
Wtf are you talking about that was over a thousand years ago and has no relevance now. You really are that stupid?
Perhaps I am that stupid. Why isn’t it relevant? the passing time changed the intolerance? That once time expired, murder is not murder?
You try whataboutery for something that happened years ago for what is happening now which is the suppresion of opinion by violence....you sir need to return to your village they are missing their idiot
It should be easy for you to answer the question then? The crimes committed that have created the world we live in, when did they stop being crimes or relevant?
The answer is simple we judge living people on what they do now. Antifa believe in violence against those that dont share their views that makes them fascist. Luther King did not support violence, he went more the gandhi route but that was still 60 years in the past and we cant judge him by todays standards he lived in a far far different world.
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I do have a problem with the far more civilised age thing. Some little pockets of earth may be jam and Jerusalem today, whilst others aren’t. No guarantee it will always be the case.
The whole discussion is about intolerance? I’m asking is intolerance built into and handed down through history, to cause the intolerance today? And if it’s not a black and white answer, then to what degree?
Is that an idiotic question?
Yes I should have qualified it by saying in most of the west we live in a world where women, black, asian,transgender etc we pretty much accept each other and rub along. Our disagreements are with the extremists on all sides whether its white supremacists or antifa etc. What happened 60 or 600 years ago isn't relevant. We are here now and what we need to avoid, because this is how we got to this place, is shutting down views with violence even when we disagree with them
So you won’t be joining us in the ultra violent resistance movement when the fascists take over then? 😕
Or, if you are wrong about the past being irrelevant and our lack of freedom can be inherited from the past, that we are in a good place there is no reason to protest, we won’t see you down the demonstration anytime soon then?
No I will oppose those that use violence instead of debate, just at the moment I see the main threat coming from the likes of antifa rather that the rather disorganised alt right
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
A record low of between 66 and 68%! We'd be lucky to get that.
No, that's the abstention rate! - 32-34% voted. At previous regionals it was 50+.
Contra-intuitively, perhaps, the Front National, Macron's party and the Greens have all fallen well below expectations in the regional elections. The centre-right Republicans have done best, and the left-wing joint lists have done quite well, with lots of socialist-led lists holding off the Greens who had hoped to overtake them. The FN's best shot is as expected in the far south, but they're on 42% there, which probably won't be enough for round 2 when the other parties swing behind the Republicans. Turnout was a record low, perhaps influenced by Covid fears.
I think with the record low turnout that the second round becomes more of a crapshoot. Which sides voters can get off their arses will be the interesting issue. I am sure there are knowledgeable people on here who can give us information on how far very low turnout affects scores.
Comments
However last week I was going on leave on Tuesday so on Monday I sat down for two or three solid hours and got it done before I left.
That was certainly expedited or sped up but it wasn't rushed. I just condensed my time and delayed some other things.
Boris, who has genius antennae, SFAICS, praises neither group. I think he is right.
What they are disputing is
1) that it will reach anything like the levels of previous waves and (more importantly)
2) that it will result in a significant new wave of hospitalisations, serious illness and deaths.
Upon which the jury is very much out (unless it has already ruled “not guilty m’lud)
There’s a war on you know.
At the time I was progressive in my politics and I kept turning out very articulate essays that the lecturers agreed with, by the third year I knew to choose the courses with the left wing lecturers that I liked, all my essays were coming back in the high 70's. Of course I left with a very high first. 80% of the people in the seminars looked on confused and didn't seem to have any opinions on anything, maybe they got 2.1's, I don't know. All my friends were also very articulate but more on the post modern side, they chose their lecturers accordingly and also got firsts but now find themselves unable or possibly unwilling to get employment outside universities and closely alligned institutions.
Re reading my university output in recent years it seems to me that I was just regurgitating progressive liberal political positions. One particularly blatant one was about women in the middle east in a module on contemporary middle eastern studies; it wasn't islam that prevented them from participating in the labour market, it was other socio economic factors. Nothing wrong with Islam then from a feminist perspective.
All the experience did was give me a vast amount of self confidence in myself and my liberal progressive beliefs. Over time this eroded and I began to see the whole thing as a sham. Maybe it has always been this way.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-great-hope-restrictions-can-end-early-on-5-july-and-uk-not-in-third-wave-says-vaccinology-expert-12336907
It would instantly get shut down as discriminatory and fundamentally unfair....even if a more balance approach may well be optimal, especially if more jobs were offered as not requiring a degree.
Given that there must be 100 odd regular commenters on here we should expect 5-10 to be anti-vax, so it makes sense if he is
But anyway the problem is with the definition of “wave”. Is there one that is universally agreed upon? I haven’t seen any sign of it! You can have a wave of cases without having a wave of hospitalisations. Or of deaths.
And it also makes a bit of a difference whether you determine any such “waves” as significant or not.
For example in my Masters on Medical Education for one module I wrote a well referenced piece on the "Hidden Curriculum in Medicine" on which I spent a great deal of time, exploring the motivations of those who subvert the orthodox curriculum. For example the role of dark humour, drinking societies, deliberate corpsing of fellow students etc as coping mechanisms for the horrors of medical life.
Unfortunately, the Lecturers took a dislike to my thinking, and wanted me to see such activity in an exclusively negative way. My conclusion was not that such activities were appropriate, so much as served a need unaddressed by the formal curriculum, and such a need had to be acknowledged in less potentially destructive ways, such as via Schwartz Rounds.
The most obvious sign is a chart that goes up and down three times in wave form, so three waves?
Does it matter the third one is not natural, was avoidable until seeded by your own government through border policy, does that discount it as wave. 😕
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/schools-to-be-asked-to-put-on-after-school-clubs-for-children-to-catch-up-lost-learning-ahead-of-funding-plea-1062400
PB is not usually inhabited by loons... but then again...
The 'woke' are racist (in that they continually emphasise racial differences, and attribute whiteness to all sorts of undesirable and evil behaviour) and incorporate many elements of fascism in their activism, ie use of violence, forcible supression of opinion. They are neither antiracist or antifascist.
The vaccines had been tested as extensively as any before approval - and by now more so than almost any.
What’s your substantive criticism ?
No other words for accelerated timelines will do, apparently...
Maybe he is just a fan of https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1979320/
Its the same with the racists booing the England team. Football still has a big problem (globally!) with racism. Its now calling the racists racist and they don't like it.
“I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening, and he more or less told me, Listen. This is… when this other shoe drops, you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that, and figure out what you’re going to do”.
We have a new flu vaccine every year.
Is that rushed ?
I do recommend as I have to others on this board before that you read Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, if you haven't yet, it explains very well the intellectual decline that has taken place in universities over the past 30 /40 years, and the problems it has led to with the 'woke'.
*It was said that suicide was the only way to avoid an EK-II
You are using the past to try and justify what antifa does when we live in a far more civillised age. It doesn't work to make them any less evolutionary throwbacks that need to be excised from civil society and I think the same about right wing groups that are violent against those that don't share their views likewise and condemn them equally as fascist
Not impossible at all is it. If they think they are being inferred as racist unless they stand and applaud.
The sport is trying to draw a firm line because decades on from the few black players being widely abused there are still stubborn pockets of racist fans at it. If racists want to boo being called out as racists then they need to be called out. It isn't acceptable.
I do have a problem with the far more civilised age thing. Some little pockets of earth may be jam and Jerusalem today, whilst others aren’t. No guarantee it will always be the case.
The whole discussion is about intolerance? I’m asking is intolerance built into and handed down through history, to cause the intolerance today? And if it’s not a black and white answer, then to what degree?
Is that an idiotic question?
From England footballers through to Sky Sports kick it out, they can decide for themselves, but can’t decide for others how they choose to oppose racism. That’s the contention isn’t it?
It's Morrison's though so it really wouldn't surprise me if Amazon wasn't running their slide rule over it - albeit I wonder what clauses exist to protect Ocado in those circumstances.
Not sure what else we can do...?
https://twitter.com/peterallenparis/status/1406697896444039178?s=21
I don't think though that universities are in intellectual decline, though perhaps diluted by over expansion so much as following intellectual fashion as they always have. Like other fashions there is a lot of froth and absurdity alongside more substantial social trends.
I do think that the centralised nature of university campuses is obsolete, as the last year has shown, and online distance type learning is a very reasonable alternative. Far from being a problem, this is liberating, opening up the possibilities of modular learning integrated with work, or other universities, anywhere in the world. It also opens up the possibility of Academics leading modules from outside of a formal university setting.
I don't think that I could have worked as a University Academic in the current setting, it is far to constricting.
We'd be lucky to get that.
Or, if you are wrong about the past being irrelevant and our lack of freedom can be inherited from the past, that we are in a good place there is no reason to protest, we won’t see you down the demonstration anytime soon then?