politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2020 betting and polling continue to look good for Biden

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

Of course this comment is being shown up to try to discredit all the extremely well researched and knowledgeable comments Starkey made that destroyed the arguments of blm halfwits.

Britain's all powerful navy stamped out slavery after it was abolished here It would have been far more widespread if it weren't for the RN.

Britain tore itself apart over the morals of slavery from 1760 up until its abolition.

LadyG said:

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

Of course this comment is being shown up to try to discredit all the extremely well researched and knowledgeable comments Starkey made that destroyed the arguments of blm halfwits.

Britain's all powerful navy stamped out slavery after it was abolished here It would have been far more widespread if it weren't for the RN.

Britain tore itself apart over the morals of slavery from 1760 up until its abolition.

I don't think his remark destroys history. It probably destroys his TV career

CorrectHorseBattery said:

contrarian said:

US stock markets poised for a strong open after US jobs data looked better than expected.

Fantastic for my oil investments.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

But if that's the case what's the point of voting Lib Dems?

Maybe the Lib Dems should have let the Tories form a minority government, demand a pound of flesh for budgets etc and then just accepted an election was coming?

Or they did the right thing joining the coalition but then should have stood proudly by it. This is where I think they went wrong.

They acted like they were ashamed of being in coalition with the Tories rather than standing up proud saying "yes we are the party for coalitions and look at all we have achieved: this, this, this and this . . . if you elect us again and we are in a position to do so we will be prepared to go into coalition with either party so long as they meet our demands which are this, this and that".

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

But if that's the case what's the point of voting Lib Dems?

Maybe the Lib Dems should have let the Tories form a minority government, demand a pound of flesh for budgets etc and then just accepted an election was coming?

Or they did the right thing joining the coalition but then should have stood proudly by it. This is where I think they went wrong.

They acted like they were ashamed of being in coalition with the Tories rather than standing up proud saying "yes we are the party for coalitions and look at all we have achieved: this, this, this and this . . . if you elect us again and we are in a position to do so we will be prepared to go into coalition with either party so long as they meet our demands which are this, this and that".

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LadyG said:

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

Of course this comment is being shown up to try to discredit all the extremely well researched and knowledgeable comments Starkey made that destroyed the arguments of blm halfwits.

Britain's all powerful navy stamped out slavery after it was abolished here It would have been far more widespread if it weren't for the RN.

Britain tore itself apart over the morals of slavery from 1760 up until its abolition.

I don't think his remark destroys history. It probably destroys his TV career

Don't think he's been much on on tv or radio lately so perhaps he's at the fuck it stage.

Starkey's always been entranced by the sound of his own voice saying controversial things. Trouble is by the law of diminishing returns you've always got to be a little more outré each time.

Yes, I just checked. He's 75. Maybe he doesn't give a toss any more, and just wants to annoy; he will possibly enjoy the outraged response.

It is Darren Grimes, therefore, who should be worried. He's clever and with a promising career ahead of him: a young rightwing articulate Brexiteer gay working class white lad. He's probably the ONLY ONE of them, so he will get endless TV invites, as he ticks all the boxes.

But he needs to distance himself.

Flatlander said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

"Hence the repeated claim of BLM that the slave trade was genocide or mass murder. It wasn’t of course, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many blacks in North America or the West Indies. Or indeed in Britain."

So, yes, but without the "damn". Which does change it a little.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-august-2020/a-perversion-of-puritanism-which-aims-to-trash-our-history/

Edit: ah, there's also a video...

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This is an absurd debate. Of course this government is legitimate. That is not in question. At the same time the demand for people to pay it fealty is also absurd - just because the government is legitimate doesn't mean that you should like or respect the fact that its incompetence has killed tens of thousands of people and that the Brexit bomb is armed and ready to explode.

It it classic Tory gaslighting and hypocrisy.

OH NO!

"gaslighting"

Life is seriously too short to try to work out what it means.

A neologism too far.

Hardly a neologism. The term refers to a play by Patrick Hamilton (one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, imho) from 1938 and has been used colloquially as a term to mean a particular kind of psychological abuse since the 1960s.
Perhaps you need to lift your ban on learning new things, who knows, you might learn something!

No it hasn't.

Wikipedia disagrees with you.

So what. It has not been in any kind of common usage until a few months ago.

The term gaslighting has been around for years, certainly before the accession of Trump.

Yes indeed. I feel, anecdotally, that its use has ramped up considerably and people are broadening its use to its detriment, but the idea its not been around for a long time us not sustainable

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

LadyG said:

Stark_Dawning said:

LadyG said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Yes, that looks like pretty naked racism. I can't work out whether he's drunk and misspoke, or he's trying (and failing) to do his provocative shtick, or its just real racism emerging in some peculiarly offhand way.

I fear the last.

Mr Grimes needs to distance himself, in short order

A generous interpretation is that he placed his 'damn' in the wrong place when blurting out his sentence. Had he said '... otherwise, damn, there wouldn't be ..' then he'd be cursing a particular notion be believes foolish instead of a subset of humanity. Dunno.

That is generous. Perhaps it is the truth. I doubt he will get the benefit of the doubt, for the reasons theuniondivvie offers: the entire argument was off-colour and phrased offensively.

I imagine his media appearances are over.

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kamski said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

TOPPING said:

kjh said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

fpt for @OnlyLivingBoy

"If a wife tells her husband that he is shirking child care responsibilities and he responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, he is gaslighting her."

You ask "what isn't clear about that explanation?"

You did X. No I didn't do X.

That is gaslighting?

If he is shirking childcare responsibilities and he knows he is but pretends to her that it isn't happening, I think that is an example of gaslighting.
You are presuming that he actually isn't shirking childcare responsibilities. I think the unspoken assumption underlying the example is that the shirking is in fact taking place. I took that as read.
What may be happening is that the husband doesn't know he has the childcare responsibilities, simply assuming that the kid will get looked after even if he does nothing about it and failing to acknowledge the burden that places on his wife. In which case he is not gaslighting her, just being a twat.

It is what I imagine is a fairly typical argument amongst people that happens all the time. How you get to gaslighting from "You did this" "No I didn't" is quite a stretch.

That you have to go into "unspoken assumptions" proves my point.

Hopefully we have now discussed the etymology of the phrase enough for you to understand its meaning though.

I understand its etymology but it is a meaningless phrase.

Give me a current day usage to help me (ie not involving actual gaslights).

I also struggle with it and with 'meme'.

S'OK - @OnlyLivingBoy is going to clear matters up for us.

Trouble is I learn them, don't use them, then when they appear again I have to look them up again even though I know their origins!!!! They just don't feel natural to me. I don't want to think of the source to think what they mean.

On the other hand maybe it is age cos I have no issue with Catch 22.

I generally like words and expressions that can be traced back to works of fiction. For example the Bible and Shakespeare have given us quite a lot, but also Lewis Caroll and Orwell - though sadly "Big Brother" makes people think of something else these days (hopefully temporarily).

Of course Gaslight was published before Catch-22. The literary origin is one reason why I like the phrase Gaslight, Patrick Hamilton is one of my favourite novelists.

Haven't read Patrick Hamilton, what would you recommend?

I'm a bit disappointed nobody took me up on the Bible being a work of fiction - maybe that is finally something we can all agree on?

The bible is not a work of anything at all. It is a compilation by various committees of different books from different places about different things. That is why its chapters are denoted Book of XXX.

I once tried to explain to a Sheriff who objected to the use of the word "bible" in the context of a SPA and associated paperwork that the word simply meant a compilation of books. I am not sure that it helped my cause much.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

fpt for @OnlyLivingBoy

"If a wife tells her husband that he is shirking child care responsibilities and he responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, he is gaslighting her."

You ask "what isn't clear about that explanation?"

You did X. No I didn't do X.

That is gaslighting?

If he is shirking childcare responsibilities and he knows he is but pretends to her that it isn't happening, I think that is an example of gaslighting.
You are presuming that he actually isn't shirking childcare responsibilities. I think the unspoken assumption underlying the example is that the shirking is in fact taking place. I took that as read.
What may be happening is that the husband doesn't know he has the childcare responsibilities, simply assuming that the kid will get looked after even if he does nothing about it and failing to acknowledge the burden that places on his wife. In which case he is not gaslighting her, just being a twat.

It is what I imagine is a fairly typical argument amongst people that happens all the time. How you get to gaslighting from "You did this" "No I didn't" is quite a stretch.

That you have to go into "unspoken assumptions" proves my point.

I think the missing piece, which would perhaps make it more clear to you, is the element of power or control necessary in the relationship.

In the case of, for example, an individual confronting a bureaucracy which simply refuses to acknowledge what it has done, then the term can be quite apt. I'm pretty sure some of the sub postmasters who fell victim to the Post Office accounting debacle began to doubt their own sanity at times.

It is undoubtedly abusive or corrupt or inept behaviour but calling it "gaslighting" doesn't help clarity.

Looking forward to @OnlyLivingBoy's example.

Say you and I were in a relationship (I know, hard to believe, you don't seem my type, but let's suspend disbelief). You start to feel like you are left to do all the housework, and confront me about it. I know that you are right, I am a lazy shit and waste my time arguing with right wing loons on the internet instead of ever doing anything useful. But instead of saying Yes, you are right, I will try to pull my weight more in the future, I lie and tell you that I actually cleaned the house when you were out. Didn't you notice? That's typical, whenever I do anything to help you don't even notice it, you're just a stupid nag. You think, wow maybe he's right, come to think of it maybe the house did look a bit cleaner on Thursday, I must have just not really noticed, I don't know what's wrong with me. I'm so stupid.
That is gaslighting. Hope that helps.

Yes I see. But I also see no need for a whole new word to describe it.

How is it used in political discourse if at all?

It's overused. People seem to use it to suggest their opponent doesn't mean what they say they mean, which can be true sometimes, but conveniently means that you can claim your opponent is opposing you for sinister reasons to try to confuse reality rather than just because they oppose you.

Yes, just like virtue signalling is overused to claim people are saying things because they want to look good not because they actually believe them. Lots of phrases are misused or weaponised as rhetorical devices in political discourse, but that doesn't make them invalid or useless concepts.

MrEd said:

contrarian said:

MrEd said:

contrarian said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

contrarian said:

US stock markets poised for a strong open after US jobs data looked better than expected.

Fantastic for my oil investments.

Maybe not so good for Biden investments though

Sounding a bit like a Trumpster there, @contrarian

Not really a supporter, just putting the other side of the argument. As usual!

I was joking. However, there has been a slew of positive data in the past few days - upwards jobs revision for May, consumer confidence growth, stock markets past quarter in a long time (from the shocks of Q1). It will obviously influence how people view the data.

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

Cameron needed LD support to form a government in 2010 and Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to form a government after the next general election

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

fpt for @OnlyLivingBoy

"If a wife tells her husband that he is shirking child care responsibilities and he responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, he is gaslighting her."

You ask "what isn't clear about that explanation?"

You did X. No I didn't do X.

That is gaslighting?

It’s not “You did X. No I didn’t do X”

It’s “You did X. X never happened”

In this case the message isn’t that he’s shirking his responsibility for child care, it’s that he has no responsibility for child care. The gaslighting is the process of convincing her that him having no responsibility for childcare is the normal state of affairs.

Charles said:

I loved the snippet I heard from Jacina on the radio

“We had a long discussion during which he reached the conclusion he should resign”

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Stark_Dawning said:

LadyG said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Yes, that looks like pretty naked racism. I can't work out whether he's drunk and misspoke, or he's trying (and failing) to do his provocative shtick, or its just real racism emerging in some peculiarly offhand way.

I fear the last.

Mr Grimes needs to distance himself, in short order

A generous interpretation is that he placed his 'damn' in the wrong place when blurting out his sentence. Had he said '... otherwise, damn, there wouldn't be ..' then he'd be cursing a particular notion be believes foolish instead of a subset of humanity. Dunno.

That is generous. Perhaps it is the truth. I doubt he will get the benefit of the doubt, for the reasons theuniondivvie offers: the entire argument was off-colour and phrased offensively.

I imagine his media appearances are over.

I think in his own head what was happening was "intellectually gifted and super knowledgeable giant in the field tells it like it is without fear or favour and to hell with political correctness when it comes to language."

But now (as you say) he will most likely be cancelled as regards current affairs punditry and people will have to find a way of making such programmes without him.

I think his books and previous TV docs will live on though.

There's been a rare right > left cancellation today, as well

A right-on BLM Harvard girl made a fairly provocative video saying she would stab anyone who said "All Lives Matter", and happily watch them die.

She's now lost her job and she's crying.

https://twitter.com/Never_Again_UK_/status/1278481409968128000?s=20

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

That’s an example of a good political cartoon compared to the rubbish you usually post

DavidL said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

The best thing I can say about Boris Johnson is that he’s not a real Tory. The Prime Minister belongs instead to the popular liberal right, though he seems to get less popular by the day. His appeal to right-wing voters is based on his promise to ‘get Brexit done’ and the demented, 30-tweet-thread rage-pain he stirs in the hearts of some progressives. What these supporters have not yet but one day will have to confront is the fact that Boris is not one of them. Not on immigration, not on climate change, not on the culture wars. Anyone who can establish a substantive difference between his response to the riots and that of Sir Keir Starmer, feel free to fire in down in the comments......

....FDR drew upon grand rhetoric to sell grand ideas; Boris talks big to retail small change. The idea of reform seems to energise him but not enough to make the necessary financial outlay. He is a liberal in his head but still a conservative in his pocketbook.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-s-new-deal-is-nothing-of-the-sort

That's why I like him so much!

But is the government plan remotely up to the task of rebuilding the post-COVID economy?

In today's money Roosevelt spent £660 billion. We're in roundings of a percentage of that territory....

No we're not, that's the media telling fibs.

Roosevelt spent £660 billion when you add all of his spending up together. Not in a single day, not in a single speech.

Yesterday's speech was £5 billion but yesterday's speech was just one single element of what the govenrment is doing. How much has the government spent when it comes to furlough? That absolutely must be included when it comes to any comparisons with Roosevelt.

As someone once said "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

I think about £25bn so far

I think that understates it. I have been reading about the last year or so of the Hoover administration and the introduction of the New Deal.

The crucial mistake by Hoover was to insist upon a tightening of the money supply reducing demand in the economy. This was followed by wage cuts and the non payment of many public servants, notably teachers, as state governments literally ran out of money. In contrast the UK has quite correctly kept all the spending at normal levels and has essentially deferred tax bills in a very big way, hence the massive deficits. On one view we are over £100bn already and will be over £150bn when the numbers for June come out.

If sheer weight of money is all that is needed we are spending enough.

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

Attempts to make out slavery was genocide, as if simply slavery=bad is not enough, is diminishing what actually happened. Slavery doesn't have to be genocide to be something horrific that should never happen again.

Yes, it's a kind of distraction, even a diversion.

Slavery is a uniquely awful form of human evil: treating other humans as objects, possessions, or animals, to be bought, sold, bred and abused.

It stands alone in its scale and horror. It should be seen as such.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

That’s an example of a good political cartoon compared to the rubbish you usually post

The cringeing obsession of remoaners with how we're perceived abroad is something akin to a mental disorder. We voted for Brexit to be an independent trading nation, with a democratically elected Government setting our own laws. I would be surprised if that rather humble aim did not eventually result in grudging respect in the counsels of the world, but if it results in interminable attempts at levity, that's fine too, I really couldn't give a toss, and neither should anyone else.

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

Cameron needed LD support to form a government in 2010 and Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to form a government after the next general election

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I created the fucking scenario, I know what happened!

You think you do, but can you be sure? You might be imagining this scenario.

Ha ha very good.
At least we all know what gaslighting means now.

We know it is meaningless albeit we know what it means.

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

Attempts to make out slavery was genocide, as if simply slavery=bad is not enough, is diminishing what actually happened. Slavery doesn't have to be genocide to be something horrific that should never happen again.

Yes, it's a kind of distraction, even a diversion.

Slavery is a uniquely awful form of human evil: treating other humans as objects, possessions, or animals, to be bought, sold, bred and abused.

It stands alone in its scale and horror. It should be seen as such.

True, but it is different from the attempted extermination of a race, like the holocaust. The Nazis did not want anything to do with the Jews. They just wanted them gone. Eliminated (though admittedly some were used as slave labour).

Two kinds of horrible evil. But two different kinds.

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

Cameron needed LD support to form a government in 2010 and Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to form a government after the next general election

Then it´s time you people started being nice to the Lib Dems, isn´t it?

Richard_Nabavi said:

The discussion of whether the Atlantic slave trade was genocide is simply an argument over the definition of the word genocide. If you want to define genocide that widely, then it was.

However, it's not helpful to extend the definition in that way, since it simply makes the word less precise. Why twist a word to fit when we already have a perfectly clear and well-understood phrase which describes the horror more specifically?

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

The fact people survived isn't relevant to the question. That's a hole Starkey has fallen into. The question is whether the killing on a mass scale of a people of targeted ethnicity is sufficient to be deemed genocide, or whether there needs to be a deliberate intention to eliminate a race. Problem is the moral distinctions aren't clear. So Nazi concentration camps with gas chambers is genocide; without gas chambers it isn't. Not sure about the usefulness of that distinction.

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The discussion of whether the Atlantic slave trade was genocide is simply an argument over the definition of the word genocide. If you want to define genocide that widely, then it was.

However, it's not helpful to extend the definition in that way, since it simply makes the word less precise. Why twist a word to fit when we already have a perfectly clear and well-understood phrase which describes the horror more specifically?

As genocide was defined only after WW2, the argument is somewhat moot.

But the transatlantic slave trade probably falls within the UN definition, which is, in the literal sense, definitive.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I created the fucking scenario, I know what happened!

You think you do, but can you be sure? You might be imagining this scenario.

Ha ha very good.
At least we all know what gaslighting means now.

We know it is meaningless albeit we know what it means.

You understand perfectly well; now you're just gaslighting us.

LostPassword said:

Argh

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

Cameron needed LD support to form a government in 2010 and Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to form a government after the next general election

Is it that likely that Lib Dems support will make the difference between Starmer becoming PM or not?

Even if they have a very good GE there will be quite a narrow range of results where their MPs will make the difference. It's almost certain there will be more than twice as many SNP MPs as Lib Dems - there are currently more than four times as many.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The discussion of whether the Atlantic slave trade was genocide is simply an argument over the definition of the word genocide. If you want to define genocide that widely, then it was.

However, it's not helpful to extend the definition in that way, since it simply makes the word less precise. Why twist a word to fit when we already have a perfectly clear and well-understood phrase which describes the horror more specifically?

As genocide was defined only after WW2, the argument is somewhat moot.

But the transatlantic slave trade probably falls within the UN definition, which is, in the literal sense, definitive.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That definition shows that the Atlantic slave trade wasn't genocide. There was no 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. [Or at least, there was no such intent amongst the Europeans involved. Not sure about the African tribes doing the enslaving - they might have had such intent.]

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Malmesbury said:

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

Attempts to make out slavery was genocide, as if simply slavery=bad is not enough, is diminishing what actually happened. Slavery doesn't have to be genocide to be something horrific that should never happen again.

Yes, it's a kind of distraction, even a diversion.

Slavery is a uniquely awful form of human evil: treating other humans as objects, possessions, or animals, to be bought, sold, bred and abused.

It stands alone in its scale and horror. It should be seen as such.

True, but it is different from the attempted extermination of a race, like the holocaust. The Nazis did not want anything to do with the Jews. They just wanted them gone. Eliminated (though admittedly some were used as slave labour).

Two kinds of horrible evil. But two different kinds.

Actually, the Nazi policy evolved from WorkThemReallyHardAsSlaves to WorkThem ToDeathAsSlaves and then to KillThem.

The first policy was then continued with groups such as Russian prisoners of war. Whose conditions and death rates resembled the worst versions of the older forms of slavery (mines were always particularly horrible for slaves)

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

News Flash - Our Fearless Leader now giving press conference at White House touting latest economic numbers.

Hoobert Hever lives again! Seizing upon any glimmer of good news in a sea of ill tidings, trying to convince and persuade and cajole and brainwash voters that things are improving, that his "leadership" is working, that he's MAGA despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In 1928 Americans elected "the Great Engineer" by a landslide, to keep prosperity rolling along. In 2016 the elected the "expert" in "Art of the Deal" to drain the swamp.

Four years later in 1935 in the depths of the Great Depression they threw Hoover out; because of his failure on his own terms and despite - or rather because of - his constant flow of empty words.

And in 2020 . . . you get the picture.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

Argh

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

eristdoof said:

Having just read futher up the thread. The idea that a coalition government is illigitmate is just absurd. Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.

Aue for a great idea in theory but a disaster [in their own view] in practice?

Looking back, what was so wrong with the 10-15 gov't ?

Nothing, it was the best in 50 years with the exception of the Thatcher governments, which were a very special case. All the more bizarre that the LibDems regard it as a badge of shame.

The Tories sc

The Tories didn't screw the Lib Dems over, they screwed themselves over.

The Lib Dems brought good ideas to the table and the Tories happily took them then spent years saying "we've done this".

The Lib Dems didn't shout about their achievements, they looked weak and infirm. They didn't seem proud of what they'd done - and if they're not why should anyone else?

Things like the pupil premium, raising the tax threshold, the Tories more happily boast about what they've done than the party that suggested them at the election.

I agree the Libho was involved in the negotiations boasted at the time that he had killed off the Lib Dems

The Tories didn't lay traps. I didn't say they did.

The Tories took credit for the good ideas - and the Lib Dems let them do so.

All governments take credit for what goes right - and take the flak for what goes wrong, that's the nature of politics. But the Lib Dems abdicated taking responsibility for the 2010-15 government. The Lib Dems looked abashed at what was going on rather than proudly standing up and saying "look at this, this is us". That's on them not the Tories.

After five years of government what were Clegg and his MPs shouting that were their big achievements? Frankly the only thing I remember the Lib Dems coming up with during that time that they proudly shouted as their own was the 5p bag charge - which may have been a good environmental idea but was that a good legacy for five years in office?

The Lib Dems were buggered by the 2010 election result. The Conservatives fell just short of the number of seats they needed to govern on their own (which doesn't need to be an overall majority). They needed a coalition partner. The Lib Dems could have let the Conservatives form a minority government, but sooner or later, it would have called an election, which it would have won.

The Lib Dems could, technically, have formed a coalition with Labour, the SNP, Plaid, and the SDLP to keep out the Tories, but it would have fallen apart eventually, and the Conservatives would have won a crushing majority.

What they needed was for the Conservatives to win enough seats to form a government on their own, leaving them in the position of not having to pick a side - every politician's worst nightmare.

Cameron needed LD support to form a government in 2010 and Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to form a government after the next general election

Is it that likely that Lib Dems support will make the difference between Starmer becoming PM or not?

Even if they have a very good GE there will be quite a narrow range of results where their MPs will make the difference. It's almost certain there will be more than twice as many SNP MPs as Lib Dems - there are currently more than four times as many.

No, HYUFD is wrong.

If the Lib Dems still had approximately 50 seats they could have been kingmakers but the likelihood is they'll struggle to get even half of that. The odds of the Lib Dems being in a kingmaker decision are very slim - if anything they might be in a position where they simply need to be bought off like the DUP in 2017.

It is quite possible the LDs could get to 30 plus seats next time, with a few gains in Scotland and 70 in England Starmer could then form a government with LD support and exclude the SNP