politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 64 LAB peers pay for Guardian ad to tell Corbyn that he fails
Comments
-
What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
-
Blair won a landslide in a similar situation.Dura_Ace said:
Choking clouds of charnel smoke blanketing the post-Brexit New Jerusalem should do wonders for the national mood.rottenborough said:0 -
I'm talking about the period from about Jun 10th ish. Over that time it looks like there's been a Con -> Lab swing and, at the same time, a TBP -> Con swing. (And unsurprisingly given the above, also a LD -> Lab swing)HYUFD said:
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and moreStereotomy said:
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.viewcode said:Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
0 -
Picking on minority groups and minority ethnic groups in the country and calling them unpatriotic and enemy’s of the people for electoral gain is fascist politics.HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
You don’t think he is doing that?0 -
No, in absolute terms, both Labour's and Corbyn's positions are worse now than they were in 2017. However, the Tories' position is a *lot* worse than it was then.justin124 said:
But Labour's polling position in relation to the Tories is nothing like as dire as was the case at the outset of the 2017 election. Corbyn massively outperfprmed expectations then - and might do so again. I say this as a non-Corbynite.david_herdson said:
Until recently, I'd assumed that too but his standing has surely been hit within the Party by his Brexit stance and would be tarnished still further if Labour lost again. I get that for the likes of McClusky and Milne, controlling the Party machine matters more than winning an election but wouldn't by that point it be safer for the far left to dump their failure on Corbyn personally and risk an election with a candidate of their choice, than face another challenge from the centre which they might lose against Corbyn?SouthamObserver said:
Corbyn will not resign if Labour lose the next election. He will stay until there is a far left alternative to him that can be confident of winning a leadership election.
And I do think he's beginning to look old. Is he really up for another 5+ years?
However, the chances of Corbyn pulling off another miracle are low.
- The Tory campaign should not be relied upon to be the complete shitshow it was then. There will be demands not to allow the secrecy given Nick Timothy.
- Boris hasn't covered himself in glory this leadership campaign but he can't be as bad as May was.
- Corbyn has two more years' water under the bridge and people who were prepared to give him a second chance might not give him a third.
- His personal ratings are not just at their lowest ever but the lowest for any LotO ever.
- Corbyn's actions in the 1980s might not have been relevant in 2017; his (in)actions as leader are relevant now though.
- The Lib Dems are in a far stronger position than they were in 2017 and will soon have a new leader.
- Corbyn is out of touch with him members and voters on Brexit.
- Labour's top team is no better than it was in 2017 and the media will happily chase Abbott into saying something arrogant, patronising and stupid.
Now, as you say, maybe all this won't matter as much as the Tories and Brexit. But if it does - if Labour does form a government - things will go downhill very very quickly; Labour's fundamentals are exceptionally weak.1 -
Yes, because a fascist movement in it's infancy has to look exactly the same as it would do at it's height of power. Trump is fascistic, he just doesn't have the power to do some of the things he wants to, because the structures of the US government make it difficult to do so. But considering those structural constraints, he is making the likelihood of a future full on fascist american government more likely with every norm and law broken.HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.0 -
Since 2017 the movement has mainly been Labour to LD and Tory to Brexit Party, very little movement between Labour and Tory.Stereotomy said:
I'm talking about the period from about Jun 10th ish. Over that time it looks like there's been a Con -> Lab swing and, at the same time, a TBP -> Con swing. (And unsurprisingly given the above, also a LD -> Lab swing)HYUFD said:
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and moreStereotomy said:
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.viewcode said:Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
Boris partly reverses the latter, Corbyn is unlikely to reverse the former
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1148312432768684032?s=200 -
-
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
He was not one to follow on the Scottish referendum result.Foxy said:
@SouthamObserver got the Brexit referendum prediction prize though.Yorkcity said:
Yes Southam is not one to watch on predictions.justin124 said:
I hope those predictions turn out to be as accurate as those you were confidently making just a few minutes before polls closed on 8th June 2017. Indeed I recall a state of denial continuing for a good 2 hours beyond the Exit Poll!SouthamObserver said:1. There’ll be a No Deal Brexit
2. The Tories will win the next GE
3. Jeremy Corbyn will remain leader even after Labour lose
4. Boris Johnson will be the last Tory PM in my lifetime
5. If I live my three score & 10 I’ll see the UK break-up
6. It’s bleak
7. Flee, you fools
Day after day he told us Mitt Romney was going to win.0 -
https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1141033849390084096HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.0 -
Was that not unfortunate disease outbreak, not calculated and controversial political decision making?TheScreamingEagles said:
Blair won a landslide in a similar situation.Dura_Ace said:
Choking clouds of charnel smoke blanketing the post-Brexit New Jerusalem should do wonders for the national mood.rottenborough said:0 -
Boris is no Blair.TheScreamingEagles said:
Blair won a landslide in a similar situation.Dura_Ace said:
Choking clouds of charnel smoke blanketing the post-Brexit New Jerusalem should do wonders for the national mood.rottenborough said:0 -
If that's your prediction, then fine. It's not an unreasonable one, though your level of confidence in it is.HYUFD said:
Since 2017 the movement has mainly been Labour to LD and Tory to Brexit Party, very little movement between Labour and Tory.Stereotomy said:
I'm talking about the period from about Jun 10th ish. Over that time it looks like there's been a Con -> Lab swing and, at the same time, a TBP -> Con swing. (And unsurprisingly given the above, also a LD -> Lab swing)HYUFD said:
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and moreStereotomy said:
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.viewcode said:Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
Boris partly reverses the latter, Corbyn is unlikely to reverse the former
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1148312432768684032?s=20
As I said, I was specifically arguing against viewcode's assertion: "It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly."0 -
There was a very, very different membership back then. If I recall correctly, pre-2015 members mostly opposed Corbyn in 2015 and 2016. They knew exactly what he would allow into the Labour party. And they were spot on.Zephyr said:
Some of them have become so pro Palestinian they have become anti Israel and anti Jew. It doesn’t matter if they are like a drunk who doesn’t realise they have a drink problem, or that political opponents inside and outside the party are exploiting it for political gain, the racism allegations are justified. To be Jewish is not a choice of religion but a matter of race.SouthamObserver said:This is the simple truth that Labour members like Nick Palmer refuse to accept ...
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1151452385782456320
Opponents of Corbyn, having a field day with this, if they truly hate all anti semiticsm and wish it to go away, need to be open about when and how this started. Five years ago the leader of the Labour Party was of Jewish descent, and there was no whiff of anti Semitic when he and his brother mopped up the leadership election votes or through his time in office, was there?
1 -
Some of us called that out in 2016Zephyr said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
TM called Trump out as recognised by Ian BlackfordZephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
Well I’m not calling Trump a racist. He’s gone far beyond that. The politics he is practicing with this is fascism.rottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/11/12/its-not-neo-fascism-its-the-classic-variety/0 -
Trump is very pro IsraelStereotomy said:
https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1141033849390084096HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.0 -
How do you know there hasn't been a TBP-> Lab swing instead? The cosying up of the Tories to TBP supporters and vice versa may have driven left wing leavers back in that direction.Stereotomy said:
I'm talking about the period from about Jun 10th ish. Over that time it looks like there's been a Con -> Lab swing and, at the same time, a TBP -> Con swing. (And unsurprisingly given the above, also a LD -> Lab swing)HYUFD said:
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and moreStereotomy said:
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.viewcode said:Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
0 -
I would say that pretty much all of the post imperial powers and their colonies are practically racist states. Laws in this country are not universally applied; illegal drug usage is about even split across racial lines, for instance, yet arrests are higher amongst non white people. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be affected by austerity and cuts to public services. Courts are more likely to hand down harsher sentences for the same crime. And when the media talks about the working class, there is always an assumed "white" before hand, making the working class seem a monolith whereas the working class in this country has a large number of non white people. We could talk about further structural inequalities in education, healthcare and elsewhere...Sean_F said:
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.148grss said:On the topic of the British / Israeli states and their constitutional religiosity (or lack thereof) and or racism.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
The Israeli state, from my understanding, is not constitutionally a Jewish State, although I understand Netanyahu's government has tried to pass legislation of that kind (I am unsure how that panned out).
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities. As for Israel, the current state as governed by Likud are obviously racist, with Bibi often talking about opposition parties bussing in Arab voters and other dog whistle rhetoric, as well as clearly expansionist and aggressive settling policies and disproportionate responses to Palestinians protesting.
It does still interest me that antisemitism is only discussed when coming from left wing areas. Much of the anti Soros, New World Order, Farage and Trumpian language is patently antisemitic, but we are spending more time talking about Corbyn and co. Again, during Ed's time as Labour leader it was obvious the party was happy being led by a (culturally) Jewish man, and Ed still seems somewhat popular amongst the members, even Corbyn supporters, and the many antisemitic attacks on him by the mainstream press and Tories were not considered a problem.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.0 -
No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
-
I’m not going to argue control that is important to have has been lost, in my lifetime the British government has lost control, we do need to take back control. Anyone who claims that control was 100% lost to the EU is completely wrong though, some of it was, some lost to globalisation and MNC, some lost to non EU global obligations, some control where government stood back and let the market take control.Philip_Thompson said:
By better controlling our own laws and destiny which matters far more.SouthamObserver said:
For those of us at the back who are slow on the uptake, can you explain how making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market helps the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
Not for a second. This was the debate that was held before the referendum and since then Nothing Has Changed. Leaving the Single Market and Leaving the Customs Union was officially what the Treasury and others said would happen if we voted to Leave the EU. Since he represents the Treasury, what has changed since then from the Treasuries pre-referendum comments?noneoftheabove said:
To tory no dealers I know you will disagree with Hammond, and perhaps think little of him, but does him being "terrified" and he doesnt seem one for unnecessary strong language, especially blue on blue, not make you think perhaps it is okay to slow down and think this through a bit more before jumping off the cliff?Scott_P said:
If that's his opinion it just shows he was the completely wrong person to take charge of the Exchequer after the referendum result and no wonder we're in this mess. Sooner he's on the backbenches or gone completely the better.
I read your posts, Thomo you are smart, so you don’t believe all the control was % lost to EU do you?0 -
I wrote spoof Red Flag lyrics for each of the four contenders in the 2015 Labour leadership contenders. The one I did for Corbyn might have been a bit complacent but it still stands fairly well.JackW said:
Is there an environmentally friendly solution to Labour's Jewish problem ..... chimneys are so last century.rottenborough said:Jezza tries to get back to climate change, rather than Jews.
The Labour Party 2019 -
FOR THE NOT SO MANY ESPECIALLY THE JEWS
The Corbyn flag is deepest red
It flies for heart but not for head;
To fight oppression everywhere
(unless it's Jews - then we don't care)
Another day, another cause
But it's a futile task because
In five years' time the world will see
Another Tory victory.1 -
Has there ever been anywhere in the history of the world where there hasn't been inequality? Not sure it is a particularly useful way of deciding which states are racist if the answer is all of them.148grss said:
I would say that pretty much all of the post imperial powers and their colonies are practically racist states. Laws in this country are not universally applied; illegal drug usage is about even split across racial lines, for instance, yet arrests are higher amongst non white people. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be affected by austerity and cuts to public services. Courts are more likely to hand down harsher sentences for the same crime. And when the media talks about the working class, there is always an assumed "white" before hand, making the working class seem a monolith whereas the working class in this country has a large number of non white people. We could talk about further structural inequalities in education, healthcare and elsewhere...Sean_F said:
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.148grss said:On the topic of the British / Israeli states and their constitutional religiosity (or lack thereof) and or racism.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
It does still interest me that antisemitism is only discussed when coming from left wing areas. Much of the anti Soros, New World Order, Farage and Trumpian language is patently antisemitic, but we are spending more time talking about Corbyn and co. Again, during Ed's time as Labour leader it was obvious the party was happy being led by a (culturally) Jewish man, and Ed still seems somewhat popular amongst the members, even Corbyn supporters, and the many antisemitic attacks on him by the mainstream press and Tories were not considered a problem.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.0 -
PB is always at its worst when we get mostly anonymous posters hassling other mostly anonymous posters. Nobody really cares what ZYXWV thinks about ABCDE.TOPPING said:<
@HYUFD provides a useful and interesting pov. It is when he starts ascribing views and political homes to other posters that is the issue.0 -
A swing is the net change in support between two parties. It doesn't mean that the voters are moving directly between those two parties. So yes, there has also been a TBP -> Lab swing.dixiedean said:
How do you know there hasn't been a TBP-> Lab swing instead? The cosying up of the Tories to TBP supporters and vice versa may have driven left wing leavers back in that direction.Stereotomy said:
I'm talking about the period from about Jun 10th ish. Over that time it looks like there's been a Con -> Lab swing and, at the same time, a TBP -> Con swing. (And unsurprisingly given the above, also a LD -> Lab swing)HYUFD said:
Only from Tory to Brexit Party which Boris will reverse and moreStereotomy said:
I don't think that last sentence is true. If anything there's been a slight Con -> Lab swing in recent polls, though it's pretty much M.O.E. stuff.viewcode said:Anyhoo. I note the kerfuffle about @HYUFD . Whilst I acknowledge that in terms of rhetoric escalation he is about two weeks away from creating the Daleks, and that it is often difficult to separate his headcanon[1] from his analysis, his thesis that Boris will become PM, leave on time (sic) regardless of deal, and that with the Leavers united and the Remainers split between the Libs and the anti-Semites he will win the coming election, is basically sound. It is also supported by the available evidence with Con recovering in the polls, albeit weakly.
0 -
https://twitter.com/antartica81/status/1151455680324395009?s=21AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Your point?HYUFD said:
Trump is very pro IsraelStereotomy said:
https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1141033849390084096HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.0 -
That's a lost deposit then...Scott_P said:
0 -
We want the poll! We want the poll! We Want the poll!HYUFD said:
Only because the Brexit Party is taking Tory votes, Boris will reverse thatFoxy said:
48% of Brecon voted Remain, and that is the side getting recent swings.HYUFD said:
Cardiff voted Remain, Brecon voted Leavetheakes said:See Lib Dems won the Cardiff by election by 30%, in 2017 neck and neck with Conservative. Is this a sign of what will happen up the road at Brecon in a fortnight. Whatever it is it appears to be another one in the eye for "Team Boris"
We want the poll! We want the poll! We Want the poll!
We want the poll! We want the poll! We Want the poll!0 -
Lib Dems gain West Brom East??Scott_P said:0 -
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
0 -
Or, biggest Halloween BBQ ever.AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Are you completely sure of that?noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
I agree with much of that, but in truth we will not know whether Corbyn has lost his campaigning mojo until he is back in action in that environment. Boris will not have May's awkwardness and is naturally much more charismatic - but , on the other hand, is likely to be taken much less seriously by voters.. Regarding Labour's polling position, I would point out that for most of April 2017 Labour's poll ratings were in the 23% - 29% range - with the latter being out of line with most. Currently Labour appears to be polling in the 25% - 29% range - with Yougov having them lower. Overall,though, not much different from April 2017 .david_herdson said:
No, in absolute terms, both Labour's and Corbyn's positions are worse now than they were in 2017. However, the Tories' position is a *lot* worse than it was then.justin124 said:
But Labour's polling position in relation to the Tories is nothing like as dire as was the case at the outset of the 2017 election. Corbyn massively outperfprmed expectations then - and might do so again. I say this as a non-Corbynite.david_herdson said:SouthamObserver said:
Corbyn will not resign if Labour lose the next election. He will stay until there is a far left alternative to him that can be confident of winning a leadership election.
However, the chances of Corbyn pulling off another miracle are low.
- The Tory campaign should not be relied upon to be the complete shitshow it was then. There will be demands not to allow the secrecy given Nick Timothy.
- Boris hasn't covered himself in glory this leadership campaign but he can't be as bad as May was.
- Corbyn has two more years' water under the bridge and people who were prepared to give him a second chance might not give him a third.
- His personal ratings are not just at their lowest ever but the lowest for any LotO ever.
- Corbyn's actions in the 1980s might not have been relevant in 2017; his (in)actions as leader are relevant now though.
- The Lib Dems are in a far stronger position than they were in 2017 and will soon have a new leader.
- Corbyn is out of touch with him members and voters on Brexit.
- Labour's top team is no better than it was in 2017 and the media will happily chase Abbott into saying something arrogant, patronising and stupid.
Now, as you say, maybe all this won't matter as much as the Tories and Brexit. But if it does - if Labour does form a government - things will go downhill very very quickly; Labour's fundamentals are exceptionally weak.0 -
If I was in a Con-Lab marginal with no hope for other parties, I would be open to voting for either if the candidate was anti no deal, non racist, non extremist and their opponent had the opposite characteristics.NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
If they were both "acceptable" or both "unacceptable" I would vote for a third party.0 -
Gallowgate said:
Lib Dems gain West Brom East??Scott_P said:
No way! Galloway might well take votes otherwise destined for the Brexit Party.Gallowgate said:
Lib Dems gain West Brom East??Scott_P said:0 -
Corbyn supporters are sometimes accused of complacency in assuming that he will repeat his 2017 comeback. And while that is true, I also think there's incredible complacency among many Corbyn haters here in assuming that he won't.justin124 said:
I agree with much of that, but in truth we will not know whether Corbyn has lost his campaigning mojo until he is back in action in that environment. Boris will not have May's awkwardness and is naturally much more charismatic - but , on the other hand, is likely to be taken much less seriously by voters.. Regarding Labour's polling position, I would point out that for most of April 2017 Labour's poll ratings were in the 23% - 29% range - with the latter being out of line with most. Currently Labour appears to be polling in the 25% - 29% range - with Yougov having them lower. Overall,though, not much different from April 2017 .david_herdson said:
No, in absolute terms, both Labour's and Corbyn's positions are worse now than they were in 2017. However, the Tories' position is a *lot* worse than it was then.justin124 said:
But Labour's polling position in relation to the Tories is nothing like as dire as was the case at the outset of the 2017 election. Corbyn massively outperfprmed expectations then - and might do so again. I say this as a non-Corbynite.david_herdson said:SouthamObserver said:
Corbyn will not resign if Labour lose the next election. He will stay until there is a far left alternative to him that can be confident of winning a leadership election.
However, the chances of Corbyn pulling off another miracle are low.
- The Tory campaign should not be relied upon to be the complete shitshow it was then. There will be demands not to allow the secrecy given Nick Timothy.
- Boris hasn't covered himself in glory this leadership campaign but he can't be as bad as May was.
- Corbyn has two more years' water under the bridge and people who were prepared to give him a second chance might not give him a third.
- His personal ratings are not just at their lowest ever but the lowest for any LotO ever.
- Corbyn's actions in the 1980s might not have been relevant in 2017; his (in)actions as leader are relevant now though.
- The Lib Dems are in a far stronger position than they were in 2017 and will soon have a new leader.
- Corbyn is out of touch with him members and voters on Brexit.
- Labour's top team is no better than it was in 2017 and the media will happily chase Abbott into saying something arrogant, patronising and stupid.
Now, as you say, maybe all this won't matter as much as the Tories and Brexit. But if it does - if Labour does form a government - things will go downhill very very quickly; Labour's fundamentals are exceptionally weak.0 -
Indeed.Dura_Ace said:
Boris is no Blair.TheScreamingEagles said:
Blair won a landslide in a similar situation.Dura_Ace said:
Choking clouds of charnel smoke blanketing the post-Brexit New Jerusalem should do wonders for the national mood.rottenborough said:0 -
Yes pretty sure, he can bluster, has plenty of experience from London mayoral questions, when he didnt know the topic he blustered and promised a report back.dixiedean said:
Are you completely sure of that?noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?
Whilst it is impressive that May might be so well briefed on asylum seeker accommadation in Glasgow, no-one thinks it is essential knowledge for a PM, saying something broad and we will get back to you on that would be fine.
Indeed if May spent less time on the detail and more time selling the big picture we might not be in this mess.
His problems are that he doesnt have the numbers, doesnt have a plan and is incapable of getting either.0 -
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201
0 -
Corbyn has often bettered May at PMQs.noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
Yes with hundreds of thousands in the bank. Hard life for the Tory supporting Brexit loving benefit scroungers. All to be paid for by the workers who voted remain.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Afternoon all
This is the bear pit @HYUFD knows that, I know that and most of us know that. Sometimes the claws come out sometimes they don't. If you're frightened of getting scratched don't come in.
IF Boris gets his majority @HYUFD will have a jolly good gloat and then spend the next five years desperately defending the Government at every turn. IF Boris fails, I don't know what he'll do - he'll oppose any Corbyn Government I'm certain but as a Conservative or a TBP member or an independent I don't know - it's his business. He'll hopefully take some of the lumps that will come his way - he normally does without going too ad hom. He has never crossed the line with me though he did call me a Lib Dem the other night.
Beside the point...I'm still stuck with this notion that Boris will be able to get a majority in favour of prorogation. I suppose he's relying on the fact Labour and the LDs may think they have a chance to nobble Boris before he gets started. I'm also slightly dubious about an election taking place in a potential period of economic dislocation.
I suppose the line will be to blame the Europeans and invoke the Blitz spirit. The problem will be if the EU offer us another extension - it will be hard to accept it's their fault if they offered us a lifeline and Boris threw it back at them.
I do note Farage is warming toward Johnson - I think the pre-31/10 electoral pact is there but if the deadline slips the gloves will be off.
0 -
9 million sheep slaughtered on the altar of No Deal Brexit.
Of course, it isn't a quasi-religious cult. No siree.0 -
Mays govt has been a disaster. Occassionally scoring a win is a pretty low bar. Any competent Labour leader would have caused the govts collapse by now.justin124 said:
Corbyn has often bettered May at PMQs.noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
Heh.justin124 said:
Corbyn has often bettered May at PMQs.noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
And a great example about why "Pro Israel" does not equal "not an antisemite". Literally said to a group of American Jewish donors that Bibi was "your Prime Minister" and in the same speech mentioned how he hated that his casino's used to have black people count money when he would have preferred "men in yamakas". Take with that the whole Soros conspiracy theory of one rich Jew importing immigrants to cuck the white race, and you have literal Nazi talking points.Stereotomy said:
Your point?HYUFD said:
Trump is very pro IsraelStereotomy said:
https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1141033849390084096HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.0 -
Once again how do you get a pre 31/10 election through Parliament. For Boris to do that he needs to do it next Thursday..stodge said:Afternoon all
This is the bear pit @HYUFD knows that, I know that and most of us know that. Sometimes the claws come out sometimes they don't. If you're frightened of getting scratched don't come in.
IF Boris gets his majority @HYUFD will have a jolly good gloat and then spend the next five years desperately defending the Government at every turn. IF Boris fails, I don't know what he'll do - he'll oppose any Corbyn Government I'm certain but as a Conservative or a TBP member or an independent I don't know - it's his business. He'll hopefully take some of the lumps that will come his way - he normally does without going too ad hom. He has never crossed the line with me though he did call me a Lib Dem the other night.
Beside the point...I'm still stuck with this notion that Boris will be able to get a majority in favour of prorogation. I suppose he's relying on the fact Labour and the LDs may think they have a chance to nobble Boris before he gets started. I'm also slightly dubious about an election taking place in a potential period of economic dislocation.
I suppose the line will be to blame the Europeans and invoke the Blitz spirit. The problem will be if the EU offer us another extension - it will be hard to accept it's their fault if they offered us a lifeline and Boris threw it back at them.
I do note Farage is warming toward Johnson - I think the pre-31/10 electoral pact is there but if the deadline slips the gloves will be off.
0 -
The Open this week, do you like golf?dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201
In all seriousness what do you think of the new stadium move?0 -
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
0 -
There is no way the Govt would pay compensation for sheep to be culled. It would be really stupid politics. If they paid compensation it would be to keep the sheep alive and say it was protecting the beauty of the countryside or they would buy the meat for the NHS, Army etc.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
When everywhere is racist, nowhere is. This is pretty small beer.148grss said:
I would say that pretty much all of the post imperial powers and their colonies are practically racist states. Laws in this country are not universally applied; illegal drug usage is about even split across racial lines, for instance, yet arrests are higher amongst non white people. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be affected by austerity and cuts to public services. Courts are more likely to hand down harsher sentences for the same crime. And when the media talks about the working class, there is always an assumed "white" before hand, making the working class seem a monolith whereas the working class in this country has a large number of non white people. We could talk about further structural inequalities in education, healthcare and elsewhere...Sean_F said:
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.148grss said:On the topic of the British / Israeli states and their constitutional religiosity (or lack thereof) and or racism.
I assume no one disagrees that the UK is constitutionally a Protestant state, even if it's people and governance is mostly secular / pluralist.
The Israeli state, from my understanding, is not constitutionally a Jewish State, although I understand Netanyahu's government has tried to pass legislation of that kind (I am unsure how that panned out).
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities. As for Israel, the current state as governed by Likud are obviously racist, with Bibi often talking about opposition parties bussing in Arab voters and other dog whistle rhetoric, as well as clearly expansionist and aggressive settling policies and disproportionate responses to Palestinians protesting.
The lords trying to use this as a stick to beat Corbyn do a disservice to the issue. They are right he hasn't done enough to deal with the issue. But saying the only thing left he can do to put it right is to resign will immediately have 2/3rds of the Labour membership see this as another attempted stitch up of Corbyn, and treat this issue with less seriousness because of it.
0 -
Plenty of options if you have the land.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Even fascists have to work within the rule of law, at least for as long as they don't control the law.HYUFD said:
Trump is a Nationalist not a Fascist, if he was a Fascist he would have tried to arrest Nancy Pelosi last night and banned the Democratic PartyZephyr said:
The politics he’s using here is fascism. Call him a fascist.HYUFD said:
The US House of Representatives voted last night to call Trump racist by a majority vote but it is now controlled by the Democrats, May and Boris might criticise Trump's words like Mitt Romney has but like Romney they will also not go so far as to call him racistrottenborough said:
True enough. Very difficult though for our head of state to call the American head of state a racist. Personally, if I was PM, I would, but that's probably why I would never make it up the greasy pole.Zephyr said:
Anyone who calls Corbyn racist but won’t call Trump racist doesn’t have the credibility to launch a powerful attack on him. That’s fair to say isn’t it?Big_G_NorthWales said:Full on attack by TM on Corbyn antii semitism
We stood up to them in the 1930s and 1940s and beat them, we will do so again. There can be no US UK special relationship whilst there is a fascist in the whitehouse, is what the PM should say.
Structurally, the US political system makes it very difficult for a fascist administration to take over - which is fortunate given how susceptible US political culture is to nationalist rhetoric, witchhunts, populism and the like.0 -
Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.0 -
Brexit dividend. Thank goodness Leave voting pensioners are protected, but Brexit leaves the Left Behind further behind than ever.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1151402205657935872
0 -
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.TOPPING said:
Plenty of options if you have the land.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Harris now leading in California in new poll:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/harris-warren-california-poll-14177030 -
Ha ha. I'll believe the new stadium when I am in it.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Open this week, do you like golf?dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201
In all seriousness what do you think of the new stadium move?0 -
If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.Sean_F said:
When everywhere is racist, nowhere is. This is pretty small beer.148grss said:
I would say that pretty much all of the post imperial powers and their colonies are practically racist states. Laws in this country are not universally applied; illegal drug usage is about even split across racial lines, for instance, yet arrests are higher amongst non white people. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be affected by austerity and cuts to public services. Courts are more likely to hand down harsher sentences for the same crime. And when the media talks about the working class, there is always an assumed "white" before hand, making the working class seem a monolith whereas the working class in this country has a large number of non white people. We could talk about further structural inequalities in education, healthcare and elsewhere...Sean_F said:
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.148grss said:As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities.
0 -
That is true. But on the whole the farming community is pretty phlegmatic about what it grows or raises. It will wait to see where the demand is and adapt.dixiedean said:
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.TOPPING said:
Plenty of options if you have the land.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201
Of course this will be a process of years not weeks or months and there will be winners and losers but on the whole if you have an acre or two of land you can be pretty adaptable.0 -
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..0 -
Meanwhile, the
Telegraph,Daily Mail,ExpressGuardian thinks that Theresa won PMQs.
1 -
I will vote LibDem or Green and I am in a Tory/Lab marginal. I cannot vote for a party led by a racist. I would happily vote for a party espousing left-wing policies led by a non-racist, but sadly that option is not on offer.NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
That said, I do think that Johnson will be Labour's best chance to keep a large part of its 2017 coalition together. A lot of people will hold their noses to vote Labour because they find Johnson so repellent.
0 -
And which countries (ancient or modern) aren't or weren't?148grss said:If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
0 -
DixieDean does know what happens to the Sheep the Sheep farmers normally raise doesn't he???0
-
My Everton supporting friends are like you.dixiedean said:
Ha ha. I'll believe the new stadium when I am in it.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Open this week, do you like golf?dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201
In all seriousness what do you think of the new stadium move?
They also don’t think Joe Anderson will get the funding for it either.
For the last few years you can’t pick up a paper or switch on the telly without him bemoaning Tory austerity but he’s managed to find a few hundred million for Everton’s new stadium.0 -
Well for example, if the best deal with EU is the current one (not that I believe it is) to what extent will a left wing programme as you called it run into trouble with the EU?Zephyr said:
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
0 -
The Guardian failed to endorse Corbyn in the 2016 leadership election so it's practically a Tory paper anyway.TOPPING said:Meanwhile, the
Telegraph,Daily Mail,ExpressGuardian thinks that Theresa won PMQs.1 -
Yep - my seat is definitely Labour v Tory and I won't be voting Tory this time around... Given the NFU tweets below it wouldn't surprise me if the 2 Tory seats to the south of me also go Labour...SouthamObserver said:
I will vote LibDem or Green and I am in a Tory/Lab marginal. I cannot vote for a party led by a racist. I would happily vote for a party espousing left-wing policies led by a non-racist, but sadly that option is not on offer.NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
That said, I do think that Johnson will be Labour's best chance to keep a large part of its 2017 coalition together. A lot of people will hold their noses to vote Labour because they find Johnson so repellent.0 -
Worthy of furthe rinquiry, I think.FF43 said:Brexit dividend. Thank goodness Leave voting pensioners are protected, but Brexit leaves the Left Behind further behind than ever.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1151402205657935872
The last six months (perhaps too recent for the chart) have seen wages outstrip the cost of inflation. That being the case I query the effect on household incomes. Unless it is something about the tax or benefits element.0 -
Do you talk out of your arse often? Most sheep farmers would be better off working on minimum wage. I'd like to see a lily-livered towny twat like you swap for their life style. you wouldn't know what hit you.noneoftheabove said:
Yes with hundreds of thousands in the bank. Hard life for the Tory supporting Brexit loving benefit scroungers. All to be paid for by the workers who voted remain.dixiedean said:
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?eek said:
That's a minimum of £550m (9m at £60 a culled Ewe see http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/markets/auction-market-reports/daily-gb-regional-averages/ )AlastairMeeks said:No deal Leavers are now at the stage of demanding blood sacrifice:
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1151419272666767362
https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/11514355174536192010 -
Did you vote Labour in 2017 when the party polled 41% across GB?SouthamObserver said:
I will vote LibDem or Green and I am in a Tory/Lab marginal. I cannot vote for a party led by a racist. I would happily vote for a party espousing left-wing policies led by a non-racist, but sadly that option is not on offer.NickPalmer said:
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.AndyJS said:There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
That said, I do think that Johnson will be Labour's best chance to keep a large part of its 2017 coalition together. A lot of people will hold their noses to vote Labour because they find Johnson so repellent.0 -
A dead sheep would be better than Corbyn, and a half dead one better than Boris.dixiedean said:
Are you completely sure of that?noneoftheabove said:
PMQs is the least of his worries, he will be better than Corbyn and that is enough.dixiedean said:What struck me about a very uninspiring PMQs was the sheer range of topics and detail covered. Telford Council, Northern Rail, pancreatic cancer robots, asylum seeker accommodation in Glasgow to name but a few.
You have to either know the detail, or convince with a plausible answer. And treat the topic with the appropriate register. Sometimes a light hearted response will suffice. At others with great gravitas. And to identify correctly which one.
How will Boris do?0 -
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.0 -
Indeed I do. There are sheep in the field next door but one, and all around my village. But the flock re-populates itself every Spring. It doesn't if it doesn't exist any longer.JBriskinindyref2 said:DixieDean does know what happens to the Sheep the Sheep farmers normally raise doesn't he???
0 -
How many Tory MPs represent highly agricultural seats ?
Surely they must be getting a little worried .0 -
This popped up on an episode of world war weird.
https://news.sky.com/story/calls-for-probe-into-us-govt-weaponising-insects-to-spread-disease-11764918
My understanding is Tricky Dicky shut the programme down, but Bolton and Trump started it up again, despite the fact the US government given so many of their own citizens the very nasty limes disease via these experiments.0 -
Plus it's run by the Rothschilds so it's no real surprise.williamglenn said:
The Guardian failed to endorse Corbyn in the 2016 leadership election so it's practically a Tory paper anyway.TOPPING said:Meanwhile, the
Telegraph,Daily Mail,ExpressGuardian thinks that Theresa won PMQs.0 -
Your points 1 and 2 are a given - but this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers will suddenly have no market to sell their product to...ralphmalph said:
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.
For instance 7m sheep are exported every year to the EU and if you can't export them who buys them...0 -
When the inevitable post Brexit food shortages come, those on here that think farmers have an easy life on subsidies will be demanding the subsidies are reinstated. The reality is that consumers have subsidised food, and they like it that way, but they just don't quite realise it yet.ralphmalph said:
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.0 -
Somebody posted an NFU members poll showing 52% remain 26% leave and 22% don’t know so the myth of all farmers voting leave maybe a bit out. Also the president of the NFU talks more sense on brexit than the ERG/TBP/Johnson and Hunt put together.TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.0 -
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1151378804193013761Nigel_Foremain said:When the inevitable post Brexit food shortages come, those on here that think farmers have an easy life on subsidies will be demanding the subsidies are reinstated. The reality is that consumers have subsidised food, and they like it that way, but they just don't quite realise it yet.
0 -
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.Richard_Nabavi said:
And which countries (ancient or modern) aren't or weren't?148grss said:If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.0 -
Which suggests they are even more f***ed than they think.Tissue_Price said:0 -
We import 40% of the food we eat. Imports are far larger than exports by a long way. The only significant food that we export more than we import is Lamb.eek said:
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...ralphmalph said:
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
We lose the exports to EU27 because of the CET being applicable. If we put exactly the same tariffs up to the EU27 then according to your argument the EU will have no UK market to sell too. Therefore there is a significant lack of supply to the UK (with the exception of Lamb). But we must have the food so the food will come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.0 -
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....ralphmalph said:
We import 40% of the food we eat. Imports are far larger than exports by a long way. The only significant food that we export more than we import is Lamb.eek said:
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...ralphmalph said:
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
We lose the exports to EU27 because of the CET being applicable. If we put exactly the same tariffs up to the EU27 then according to your argument the EU will have no UK market to sell too. Therefore there is a significant lack of supply to the UK (with the exception of Lamb). But we must have the food so the food will come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.0 -
Sorry, but that is utter tosh, based entirely on irrational prejudice, I imagine against the British Empire. You cannot seriously argue that China, or Ancient Rome (with its many thousands of slaves), or ancient Greece, or modern Greece, or pre-Imperial India, or the Aztecs, or tribes in pre-colonial North America, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Russian kingdoms, weren't 'racist' in the sense you describe.148grss said:
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.Richard_Nabavi said:
And which countries (ancient or modern) aren't or weren't?148grss said:If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.1 -
Yes, I posted that. The "farmers voted Brexit" is yet another Brexit falsehood.nichomar said:
Somebody posted an NFU members poll showing 52% remain 26% leave and 22% don’t know so the myth of all farmers voting leave maybe a bit out. Also the president of the NFU talks more sense on brexit than the ERG/TBP/Johnson and Hunt put together.TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.0 -
Many farmers, incidentally, genuinely do think it would be a good idea if we went back to seasonal eating. Quite whether the Aldi-visiting British public would be as supportive we do not know.ralphmalph said:
We import 40% of the food we eat. Imports are far larger than exports by a long way. The only significant food that we export more than we import is Lamb.eek said:
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...ralphmalph said:
The NFU are fighting two things 1) They want current subsidies to continue. 2) They do not want the Govt to let in food from around the world quota and tariff free to mitigate the effects of food price inflation.eek said:
Hunt thinks it will cost £6bn see https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/jeremy-hunt-announces-no-deal-funding-for-british/ and https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk-farming-roundtable-warns/ which basically confirms that we won't be able to export anything thanks to red tape...TheScreamingEagles said:Why the feck would we compensate farmers?
Those 🛎 ends voted for Brexit.
Brexit means Brexit and they should reap what they sow.
We should spend that money on the NHS.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
The Govt has guaranteed the subsidies until 2022. The one thing that they still keep taking about is that after brexit we could get food cheaper from the RoW by not applying the CET and removing the food safety standards. The Govt needs to clarify their position on this for example they could say they will only reduce tariffs food we do not make i.e olive oil and that they will not reduce standards for food safety.
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
We lose the exports to EU27 because of the CET being applicable. If we put exactly the same tariffs up to the EU27 then according to your argument the EU will have no UK market to sell too. Therefore there is a significant lack of supply to the UK (with the exception of Lamb). But we must have the food so the food will come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.0 -
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sorry, but that is utter tosh, based entirely on irrational prejudice, I imagine against the British Empire. You cannot seriously argue that China, or Ancient Rome (with its many thousands of slaves), or pre-Imperial India, or the Aztecs, or tribes in pre-colonial North America, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Russian kingdoms, weren't 'racist' in the sense you describe.148grss said:
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.Richard_Nabavi said:
And which countries (ancient or modern) aren't or weren't?148grss said:If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.0 -
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?Nigel_Foremain said:yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
0 -
See, Rome is an interesting one. Their idea of people were "Romans" and "non-Romans". If you were a Roman citizen, that was regardless of the colour of your skin, religion or whatever, as long as you obeyed the rules. Their class system was nuts, and seriously difficult for us modern people to understand, and their notion of race was just completely different to ours.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sorry, but that is utter tosh, based entirely on irrational prejudice, I imagine against the British Empire. You cannot seriously argue that China, or Ancient Rome (with its many thousands of slaves), or pre-Imperial India, or the Aztecs, or tribes in pre-colonial North America, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Russian kingdoms, weren't 'racist' in the sense you describe.148grss said:
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.Richard_Nabavi said:
And which countries (ancient or modern) aren't or weren't?148grss said:If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.
Modern racism is just that, modern.0 -
Tory propaganda; safe to ignore.Tissue_Price said:1 -
On Trump, although this applies to many others too, it is clear that by 'vice signalling' (i.e that he has racist views) he seeks career advantage - in his case the career being US presidential politics, whereas, for example, with some of our homegrown varieties such as Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins it is ego and money.148grss said:I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.
It is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, with such people to ascertain how racist they actually are (in their hearts and minds) as opposed to it being a front that they have chosen because it profits them.
Questions then begged -
Is it worse or better if you are not as racist as you make out you are?
Or does it not matter because (as you say) it is purely about words and behaviour and outcomes?
My view (I think) is that it does not really matter but, if anything, a non-racist pretending to be racist for personal advantage is that little bit worse than the authentic racist. Because of the added dose of a most appalling brand of cynicism.0
