So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
It was abbot , starmer and rochdale doing the tarring all those people with a brush. I merely pointed out that yes sometimes in someplaces locals have good solid reasons to resent incomers
So basically it's okay to resent people as long as they're people you personally don't like, is that the conclusion? Then you might be called a hypocrite.
My concern would be around - for example - that say "Romanians are coming here to steal our jobs". They aren't coming here to steal anything, in many cases they're doing jobs the British refuse to do like cleaning loos. Or working in the NHS, or keeping our elderly people alive.
Are we to resent those "incomers"? Or you agree that we should make distinctions.
I gave you a specific example from personal experience where I fely the locals had a cause for resentment and as usual you try and put words in my mouth that I haven't uttered in your nasty lefty way.
I REPEAT IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO READ WHAT I WROTE ......IN SOME PLACES....IE NOT ALL
Calm down, I'm trying to have a conversation with you. Shouting at me is reminding me of that "old man shouts at cloud" Simpsons meme again - not a good look
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
The proportion of Americans identifying as Evangelical, (and indeed Christian), is falling though. So really he has to work hard to stand still with them.
They also turn out more than non religious voters, in 2016 their share of turnout was 26%, compared to their 22.5% share of the population, those of no religion made up only 15% of the total voter turnout despite 23% of Americans now having no religion
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Wait so the story here is "man nods head"?
I sometimes nod my head when I'm listening, I must be more careful as I never thought it implied agreement.
Ahem - yeah .. it really does.
Well I'll be sure to be more careful, I do it subconsciously to let them know I am listening.
A senior politician, let alone the leader of a party should surely be aware of the signals he sends, given most eyes will be upon him. As has been pointed out, if he disagreed with the analysis, surely he would have said something?
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
You see this is why I don't think you're here to debate seriously.
Total cost of ownership if buying from new is worth comparing.
Thank you, I will have a play with it.
But I haven't yet seen anything that alters my view that we are still a long way from having mass electric cars. Certainly unless there are dramatic improvements in the next six months (that being about the time I will need to replace my car) I don't think I will be going for one given how much and where I drive.
From your descriptions of your specific requirements, I think we’re about 3-4 years away from what you want. Mind you, when that’s there, EVs have won.
When ranges have doubled (to a standard of all cars being between 400-800 miles depending on what you’re looking for), 150-350kW charging capability is routine (a 150kW charger can put 60 miles charge in a battery in 6 minutes; a 350kW charger can do 140 miles in the same time), and prices are comparable to ICE cars, it’s done.
And the rate of improvement in battery density and prices is going that way, as is the adoption of ultra-fast charging. It’s there or thereabouts for many people already, and more and more people will be in the category of “it suits me now” as time goes on.
Yes, that's possible. But don't forget one other thing. Before we can switch to mass EVs, we need to generate sufficient electricity to power them.
In 2017 55 million barrels of oil were used to power our transport network. The whole of our electrical output was equivalent to just 17.1 million barrels of oil.
So just to convert transport, we need to more than triple our electricity supply. OK, it will be less than that because ships and probably lorries will not be converted to electricity (more probably hydrogen) and that will amount to at a guess 50% of consumption. But it's still a large figure.
And that's before we talk about gas, which the government also wants to replace, and which was used for the equivalent of 34 million barrels of direct energy (not including gas used to generate electricity)
Add those together and we're looking at a need for a sixfold increase in electricity generation to stand still - and demand is also set to grow.
Finally we need to make sure our grid can cope with that level of demand.
So it's not just about the technology.
Lorries are going to go electric next.
As to the demand for electricity - yes, it will require an enormous build out.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
You see this is why I don't think you're here to debate seriously.
I don't give a toss what you think about why I am here. If you don't want to be answered like that then don't try insinuating I am racist by trying to twist my words to mean different things to what I said. That is why I know you are not here to debate seriously. You don't listen and you try and point score and you try and shut people up by claiming they are racist when they have said nothing of the kind.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
You see this is why I don't think you're here to debate seriously.
I don't give a toss what you think about why I am here. If you don't want to be answered like that then don't try insinuating I am racist by trying to twist my words to mean different things to what I said. That is why I know you are not here to debate seriously. You don't listen and you try and point score and you try and shut people up by claiming they are racist when they have said nothing of the kind.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots.
It may be true - but is it wise to agree with?
"Are you a Leave voter? Sir Keir Starmer thinks you're racist"
No no, they're not racist. They just - as Monty Python brilliantly satirised - "don't like the darkies". Immigration remains the number one issue amongst the parochial bigots - even HYUFD knows it hence his endless "we have to deliver Brexit because northerners want rid of foreigners"
A lockdown is not worth it with the low fatality rate of covid -19 , it really isn't.
A full lockdown as before is not justified - however the fatalities are likley to grow again judging by Spain and we are learning more as time goes on about the longer-term effects on those who survive. None of it is good. Therefore restrictions applied selectively bu area and age groups are almost certainly going to be needed. There is no going back to normal for the forseeable future.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
You see this is why I don't think you're here to debate seriously.
I don't give a toss what you think about why I am here. If you don't want to be answered like that then don't try insinuating I am racist by trying to twist my words to mean different things to what I said. That is why I know you are not here to debate seriously. You don't listen and you try and point score and you try and shut people up by claiming they are racist when they have said nothing of the kind.
Dude you just called me racist...
You called me one , I had more reason to than you however as you had actually said something that could be construed as racist.....more european immigration means less immigration from elsewhere as is commonly known fact.
A lockdown is not worth it with the low fatality rate of covid -19 , it really isn't.
Yeah, because everyone who catches Covid-19 and doesn't die have no other health issues caused by catching Covid-19.
Well at least the argument amongst some has moved onto that as all that people seemed obsessed with until recently was deaths and 500K deaths FGS . Still wrong about the death rate (4% FFS my arse) means that the very same people can now pretend they can command a lockdown again on the basis of saying its all about long covid now . (gain with very little hard analysis )
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Just a thought that appears not to have crossed your mind. Sometimes locals have very good reasons for resenting incomers. Not always but sometimes. Where I come from in Cornwall for instance my home town the incomers have pushed house prices out of all recognition buying up their second homes. Shops have changed out of all recognition to cater to them as well and come winter everything shuts and the place becomes a damn ghost town.
As an example my mother got offered the chance to buy her council house under right to buy and looked into it and found she couldn't afford it even with the maximum discount. Her two bedroom prefab 1960's bungalow apparently had a market price of 500K
Why shouldn't the locals resent that?
I think resenting specific people is fine but I think it's when we tar every person with the same brush that some might find difficulty. I am not saying that is what you are doing here.
Also, I doubt second home owners are much of an issue in Thornaby.
I didn't assert it was always reasonable to resent incomers, just that sometimes it has real reasons and it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be bigotry,
I am sure many in the country resented the vikings when they used to visit but I think it would be hard to put that down purely to xenophobic bigotry
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
Stop putting words in my mouth I never said
You said it's sometimes reasonable to resent incomers, I just wondered which incomers you thought it okay to resent and your reasons for doing so.
I recalled that in the past you cited immigration that came from abroad as being one of your issues and it was a motivation for Brexit.
In the example I mentioned I said nothing about race and in that example they would probably be 95% white british. Instead of engaging with the discussion instead you tried to make it about racism. I am not the one who has a racism problem its you and the labour party. I don't believe I ever have uttered anything about race here whatsoever. Unlike you yesterday where you claimed to want lots more european immigration presumably because its mostly white people.
You see this is why I don't think you're here to debate seriously.
I don't give a toss what you think about why I am here. If you don't want to be answered like that then don't try insinuating I am racist by trying to twist my words to mean different things to what I said. That is why I know you are not here to debate seriously. You don't listen and you try and point score and you try and shut people up by claiming they are racist when they have said nothing of the kind.
Dude you just called me racist...
You called me one , I had more reason to than you however as you had actually said something that could be construed as racist.....more european immigration means less immigration from elsewhere as is commonly known fact.
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots.
It may be true - but is it wise to agree with?
"Are you a Leave voter? Sir Keir Starmer thinks you're racist"
No no, they're not racist. They just - as Monty Python brilliantly satirised - "don't like the darkies". Immigration remains the number one issue amongst the parochial bigots - even HYUFD knows it hence his endless "we have to deliver Brexit because northerners want rid of foreigners"
I guess the question is, how do you confront this?
Clearly telling people they're racist is the wrong thing to do as not only is it often wrong, it also turns them off.
Personally I think the focus needs to shift away from the culture war - which Blair said don't have, you can't win and he was right - and onto policies.
Get into Government, change lives for the better with progressive policies (as I believe in) and I think in the longterm that will see these attitudes diminish. That's how I think we do it.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Project Fear being wound up again by the arrogant establishment as usual about covid-19. Ignoring risk analysis and longer term effects of closing down the country on the basis of having to pretend they can somehow control a virus by bossing people around and constant bombarding of nannying and pompous messages . What a depressing place the UK has become . When will people wake up that to see those in charge are doing this for political reasons , not health ones and certianly not for the good of the population.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
SW London, yes the prices are falling slowly, I'd say a few percent a month since June is fair.
I think the longer we wait the better the deal we will get but I would like to get into a new place before the end of the year. But I can cope in my current position for a bit longer.
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
I'm a bit bemused by the Corbynite surprise that Keir Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn 2.0.
I voted for him knowing full well that he was going to change the party - and I genuinely believe most people in the party felt the same. He had to some party pitching because it's a left wing party and you should know your audience but these people are kidding themselves if they thought we'd just carry on as we were after 2019
A lockdown is not worth it with the low fatality rate of covid -19 , it really isn't.
A full lockdown as before is not justified - however the fatalities are likley to grow again judging by Spain and we are learning more as time goes on about the longer-term effects on those who survive. None of it is good. Therefore restrictions applied selectively bu area and age groups are almost certainly going to be needed. There is no going back to normal for the forseeable future.
Covid-19 will be around in the background for years , perhaps ever - the government need to be honest about that and not destroying society to pretend that they can control it with bossy (usually illogical ) measures that come out of nowhere and make people unable to plan social life or run businesses. Its exactly like how the USSR used to operate. As for Priti Patel telling everyone to grass on their neighbour that was a new low in the role of the Home Office
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
If Trump gets to replace RBG then the majority of the court will have been appointed by presidents who got less votes than their opponents.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
It's a buyer market and no estate agent is going to convince me otherwise.
I do enjoy your posts, a "tear it all down" vibe is what I get from you, I like it
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
The GOP grift is to pretend they will repeal Roe vs Wade but never actually do it.
They had the majority to do it in the early 00s, they didn't do it.
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
But 80% of them vote GoP anyway and the total number of Evangelicals is diminishing. I don't see there is much scope for increasing the vote and I don't see how Ginsburg's demise makes a significant difference. Maybe it energises them...a bit? They've never lacked 'energy' before though.
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
The GOP grift is to pretend they will repeal Roe vs Wade but never actually do it.
They had the majority to do it in the early 00s, they didn't do it.
There was never any way that the Souter, Day O'Connor, and Stevens were ever going to repeal Roe v. Wade.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
But 80% of them vote GoP anyway and the total number of Evangelicals is diminishing. I don't see there is much scope for increasing the vote and I don't see how Ginsburg's demise makes a significant difference. Maybe it energises them...a bit? They've never lacked 'energy' before though.
These are the people may have not voted for say Trump's views on the military, but they may now vote because of the Supreme Court vacancy.
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots.
It may be true - but is it wise to agree with?
"Are you a Leave voter? Sir Keir Starmer thinks you're racist"
No no, they're not racist. They just - as Monty Python brilliantly satirised - "don't like the darkies". Immigration remains the number one issue amongst the parochial bigots - even HYUFD knows it hence his endless "we have to deliver Brexit because northerners want rid of foreigners"
I guess the question is, how do you confront this?
Clearly telling people they're racist is the wrong thing to do as not only is it often wrong, it also turns them off.
Personally I think the focus needs to shift away from the culture war - which Blair said don't have, you can't win and he was right - and onto policies.
Get into Government, change lives for the better with progressive policies (as I believe in) and I think in the longterm that will see these attitudes diminish. That's how I think we do it.
It took a Nigerian friend to articulate the curious incident of the reaction to the possibility of zillions of Hong Kong Chinese turning up in the UK......
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
Yeah she negotiated it last week because it was coming to an end and she knew she had him over a barrell. Even the repayment schedule for the unpaid money is over the next 12 months and weighted towards the final quarter of it. I honestly think she should run classes for other people in private rentals.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs
It was only two weeks ago they were briefing the media about firing people that didn't come back to the office.
I said it a month ago, arrogance has seeped in that the virus has gone and we've now given up as a society trying to prevent it. The issue now is that now the attitude has gone, we won't ever get it back. I can only blame Government incompetence for this.
When the lockdown ended it should have been groups of six at most, hands face space from then and an encouragement to continue WFH and avoiding public transport.
I wonder if despite the economic impacts, whether in a few months eat out to help out will be seen as a massive misstep
I don't get why this is controversial. Here in Thornaby-on-Tees local Labour activists in their 60s describe their fellow townspeople as Parochial Bigots. And not incomers like me, these are was born here have only lived here and will die here activists. The town votes for the local independent party who rants on about the evils of the people on the Stockton (County Durham) side of the River. His eminence the Mayor-for-Life posted a very funny 3am Facebook rant against me that having not been born here I would never get here and would be better "going home" to Rochdale.
And that's against people not from Yorkshire. People are increasingly openly against anyone who isn't exactly like them, and foreigners are an easy target. Its not hard right racism, just petty bigotry. And the kind of seats like Lavery mentions are riddled with exactly the kind of white working class people like Rochdale's Mrs "Bigoted Woman" Duffy and frankly my dad who whilst not being explicitly racist are more than happy to label non-whites by their skin colour and cast aspersions based on that.
The media have a lot of the blame for whipping this up though. Anti-foreigner stories endlessly in their newspapers is how you end up with white people in a town that is almost entirely white saying that the country is too full of migrants like the ones that they can't see as they don't exist locally.
Wait so the story here is "man nods head"?
I sometimes nod my head when I'm listening, I must be more careful as I never thought it implied agreement.
Ahem - yeah .. it really does.
Well I'll be sure to be more careful, I do it subconsciously to let them know I am listening.
I was watching an interview with Gabriel Pogrund last night, he was nodding his head a lot and I highly doubt he agreed with anything Aaron Bastani was saying
Your sycophantic support for Starmer would be more credible if you could just occasionally acknowledge his faults. This is not a big story but it is entirely believeable that many in the party, including Starmer, have a thinly veiled contempt for some of their erstwhile supporters. it has been well documented over the years - ask Gordon.
Whatever mate, I thought I made a perfectly reasonable point about my own experience with nodding a head not automatically meaning agreement (and gave another example) but irrespective of that, if Keir was agreeing then obviously that's no way to win an election.
It illustrates a problem that Labour need to solve and which was writ very large under Corbyn - the tension between the m/c well educated socialists and the w/c voter base whose societal view is often not on script. It has existed since the party's birth at the turn of the 20th century and has waxed and waned throughout its history. Starmer may or may not be able to square it. Much depends on policies which we are largely yet to see. His current polling is quite good but given who he replaced and the current situation it would be very odd indeed if it was anything else.
Its worse than that - the Islington set simply don't have a clue how people live or what they think. You remember Lady Nugee and the England flag tweet? Labour simply sneer at them and assume they will give them their vote because Tories.
Paradoxically is there an argument that a Supreme Court vacancy could assist the Democrats - on a relative basis. If, as is argued Democrats are normally less exercised by the issue, the pushing it to forefront of the agenda might actually cause them to take more notice of the consequences and motivate more to the polls. Republicans, being generally more tuned in/caring about it were already casting their vote regardless.
In the situation in which Johnson resigns, I wonder if Tories will call for an election as they did for Gordon Brown? Of course both May and Johnson did call elections.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
Good to see tenants getting bolshie . The UK has a structural problem in terms of high house prices and therefore high rents (supported by a perverse housing benefit) . Also means people die with large assets which means inequality of inheritence
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
The danger is that a lame duck Congress and Trump has the whole of November and December to throw a spanner in the works by confirming a new Justice even if they lose the election. Which is remarkable.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
Okay but surely it's fair to acknowledge that Cummings and poor messaging is entirely the Government's fault
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
Good to see tenants getting bolshie . The UK has a structural problem in terms of high house prices and therefore high rents (supported by a perverse housing benefit) . Also means people die with large assets which means inequality of inheritence
There are two economic reasons for high house prices - one cyclical (very low interest rates) and one structural (excessive regulation of housebuilding). The combination of the two has been thoroughly poisonous for the country.
Hadn't realised I had stirred up a hornets nest with my comment about Starmer nodding. People are prejudiced generally. Doesn't make them Racist, but most of us are biased. Whether that's against people's skin colour, sexuality, accent, politics - we see the other all the time and we don't like it especially if we feel like something is being imposed on us.
So its simply a fact that a lot of people up north are biased against people aren't like them and that includes but is not exclusive to foreigners. That race defines the Brirish identity and thus the referendum result doesn't make people who voted to leave because migration automatically open racists. They aren't.
If you can find a skilled operator its easy to twist this underlying tendency for your own ends. The Daily Mail for sales. Leave.EU for a campaign. His Eminence the Mayor of Thornaby for votes. The people in my town aren't prejudiced against incomers and outsiders or the outside world. They work and shop across the river in Stockton. But they're also quite happy to vote for identity politics which says north of the river is screwing you because they don't care about you and we're YORKSHIRE so screw you.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
The other thing that annoys me, something I said back in March, until we have a vaccine, there are no good choices, only least bad ones for the government to make.
It is why I place the Covid deniers in the same category as anti-vaxxers and people who put pineapple on pizza.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
i agree its not easy because its a virus ! So Stop trying to pretend it can be controlled by bossy obsessive and illogical measures that destroy how people live and businesses. It certainly cannot be controlled by a new patronising dumbed down three word slogan. If the PM makes these decisions then he needs to explain the science himself (to make sure we all know he does understand it) - get him up there being challenged on the stats , data and risk assessment . Then we will know we are being led by people who have no idea
Trump clearly wants to keep the issue of a new Justice live on election day to maximise evangelical turnout
In 2004 Bush won 78% of evangelicals and they made up 23% of the electorate
In 2008 McCain's share of evangelicals fell to 74% but their share of the electorate rose to 26%
In 2012 Romney increased his share of evangelicals back to the 78% Bush got though their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 26%
In 2016 Trump got the highest share of the evangelical vote yet at 81% though their voteshare again remained at 26%.
In November Trump will therefore not only be aiming to keep his share of evangelicals over 80% but to drive their turnout close to 30% of the electorate given the chance of a pro life Justice to replace a pro choice Justice
The last Democrat to win the evangelical vote was Carter in 1976, since then they have played a key part in the winning Republican campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41 once and Bush 43 twice and Trump
Been away from PB and visiting the real world for a bit so I don't know how the Brains Trust here has evaluated the Ginsburg effect. Intuitively I feel it should favor Trump but logically it is hard to pinpoint why. It was known she was likely to go soon, whether through illness death or retirement, and Evangelicals would always support a candidate who promised them SC appointments to their liking. So Trump was always going to get their vote regardless of whether there was actually a vacancy or not. I'm not sure really why the actuality of a vacancy makes much difference.
Trump's price has shortened a bit on Betfair, back to where it was a few days ago. The Spreads are unmoved. Somehow I think replacing Ginsburg is not going to determine the Election.
A few weeks ago I posted on PB that an American friend, a never Trump GOPer, said that the only way Trump was going to win was if one of the Supremes dropped dead, that we underestimated the influence of selecting Scalia's replacement got out the never Trumpers for Trump in 2016.
Believe you, TSE, but that kind of misses my point. Evangelicals always want a bench stuffed with compliant judges and will vote for anybody they think will give them that. So it doesn't matter if there is a vacancy or not. They will support whoever offers them that carrot - in this case Trump. Was true last time, will be true again this time. So politically the sudden appearance of a vacancy ought to be neutral, more or less. No?
It does, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is now in sight, they'll back any GOP candidate for President.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
The GOP grift is to pretend they will repeal Roe vs Wade but never actually do it.
They had the majority to do it in the early 00s, they didn't do it.
Yes, making Conservative control of the SC unassailable removes a lot of guaranteed votes for Republican politicians. Many of them who probably aren’t even in favour of repealing Roe vs Wade.
Regarding the coming lockdown, I can't be the only person doing some stuff now thinking we probably won't be allowed in the very near future. Which up here on Teesside is literally true now that there are regional lockdowns north and south of us.
Perhaps that is why we've received an offer (at advertised price) on our house just 2 days after putting it on the market. I now need to get on with viewing the place we want and unless some unknown nasty get that on offer as well. When we will actually be able to move, dunno.
So hospitalisations are going back up again (England is back at where it was in July?) and the death rate is also trending up.
If I have misunderstood please do correct me but that's not good at all
It's not, as we were talking about a month ago watching cases explode in Europe, the government had two weeks to implement procedures to keep things under control. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're staring into the abyss of a new national lockdown.
Hope beyond this you and your family are doing well mate.
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
Yeah all is good, hope everything is good for you as well mate.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
Good for her! Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
Yeah she negotiated it last week because it was coming to an end and she knew she had him over a barrell. Even the repayment schedule for the unpaid money is over the next 12 months and weighted towards the final quarter of it. I honestly think she should run classes for other people in private rentals.
Landlord will be looking to pay her back , it may may be a short lived victory
Regarding the coming lockdown, I can't be the only person doing some stuff now thinking we probably won't be allowed in the very near future. Which up here on Teesside is literally true now that there are regional lockdowns north and south of us.
Perhaps that is why we've received an offer (at advertised price) on our house just 2 days after putting it on the market. I now need to get on with viewing the place we want and unless some unknown nasty get that on offer as well. When we will actually be able to move, dunno.
I start to wonder if moving is even worth it, I will press on for now
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
I think you've got that sort-of the wrong way round. It's reasonable to resent, or to put it more neutrally, oppose, changes which affect your way of life. So if your town is changing rapidly, in ways you don't like, because of 'incomers', it is perfectly reasonable, and not at all morally objectionable, to say 'Hang on, we were happy as we were and we don't want our town transformed in this way, and by the way no one asked us.'. And it's perfectly possible for the town next door, which currently doesn't have large numbers of incomers, to say they don't want them, because they've seen the effect on the other town.
Where it is not reasonable, and becomes morally inacceptable, is to hate the individual incomers, who are no doubt perfectly nice people, and aren't trying to do any harm. So: OK to hate the fact of the incoming, not the incoming people. OK to strongly oppose more immigration, not OK to hate immigrants.
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
i agree its not easy because its a virus ! So Stop trying to pretend it can be controlled by bossy obsessive and illogical measures that destroy how people live and businesses. It certainly cannot be controlled by a new patronising dumbed down three word slogan. If the PM makes these decisions then he needs to explain the science himself (to make sure we all know he does) - get him up there being challenged on the stats , data and risk assessment . Then we will know we are being led by people who have no idea
Fraser Nelson made more or less the same points in his Speccie column the other day. Speaking of the Speccie, there was a fascinating article suggesting that Sweden has some seriously nasty problems with drugs gangs using extreme gun violence and even setting up roadblocks in the Gothenburg area.
Regarding the coming lockdown, I can't be the only person doing some stuff now thinking we probably won't be allowed in the very near future. Which up here on Teesside is literally true now that there are regional lockdowns north and south of us.
Perhaps that is why we've received an offer (at advertised price) on our house just 2 days after putting it on the market. I now need to get on with viewing the place we want and unless some unknown nasty get that on offer as well. When we will actually be able to move, dunno.
People will just go mad now in pubs and with family visits and so on, knowing next week or week after the shutters are coming down.
This is why I bang on about Sweden. Their policy is designed to be manageable for a long period. Instead we will be in and out of local, regional, national lockdowns of a varying and increasingly incomprehensible nature until whenever a working and safe vaccine appears.
It is a total mess imho. Rule of six lasted, what, all of five days?
This is the hokey cokey government - Its only August FFS that the government was giving vouchers to eat out on mass and now using Project Fear to tell people to stay in . Arrogant to the point of needing to pretend to be in control of a virus and also arrogant a month ago to try and pretend they can be the savior of the high street . Just go away you useless arrogant knobs.Also arrogant enough to think that they can somehow defy the EU and world to the extent that the UK will be fine in a no deal brexit
There's much to criticise the government for, for example they are treating Covid-19 like a political party/campaign.
You are right, there are reasons to criticise the government for their management of Covid. However, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have followed broadly the same strategy, and Starmer has near enough supported the government whenever it's made changes to Covid policy. There have been no significant changes to Covid policy suggested by the opposition.
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
The other thing that annoys me, something I said back in March, until we have a vaccine, there are no good choices, only least bad ones for the government to make.
It is why I place the Covid deniers in the same category as anti-vaxxers and people who put pineapple on pizza.
Covid deniers as you call them actually are more realistic about it than government in that they realise it cannot be eliminated by three word slogans or lockdowns but governments are too arrogant in pretending that they can control it and eliminate it. They are the true covid deniers .
Is it the considered view of PB that a national lockdown is coming then?
Yes, an unnecessarily IMO. We can still take steps to avoid it but the government doesn't have the competence to do and will use the easier blunt tool of lockdown instead.
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
I think you've got that sort-of the wrong way round. It's reasonable to resent, or to put it more neutrally, oppose, changes which affect your way of life. So if your town is changing rapidly, in ways you don't like, because of 'incomers', it is perfectly reasonable, and not at all morally objectionable, to say 'Hang on, we were happy as we were and we don't want our town transformed in this way, and by the way no one asked us.'. And it's perfectly possible for the town next door, which currently doesn't have large numbers of incomers, to say they don't want them, because they've seen the effect on the other town.
Where it is not reasonable, and becomes morally inacceptable, is to hate the individual incomers, who are no doubt perfectly nice people, and aren't trying to do any harm. So: OK to hate the fact of the incoming, not the incoming people. OK to strongly oppose more immigration, not OK to hate immigrants.
Yes, this is what I was trying to say but as usual you are far more articulate than me.
But the question remains, how does a Labour leader deal with that? I can't think our view here is popular with the people Labour needs to win over
It's okay to resent a specific person, I think but to resent everyone of a certain race, or country because of bad experiences with one would be bordering on racism.
For example, hating Eastern Europeans because Polish people come here to work. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't.
I think you've got that sort-of the wrong way round. It's reasonable to resent, or to put it more neutrally, oppose, changes which affect your way of life. So if your town is changing rapidly, in ways you don't like, because of 'incomers', it is perfectly reasonable, and not at all morally objectionable, to say 'Hang on, we were happy as we were and we don't want our town transformed in this way, and by the way no one asked us.'. And it's perfectly possible for the town next door, which currently doesn't have large numbers of incomers, to say they don't want them, because they've seen the effect on the other town.
Where it is not reasonable, and becomes morally inacceptable, is to hate the individual incomers, who are no doubt perfectly nice people, and aren't trying to do any harm. So: OK to hate the fact of the incoming, not the incoming people. OK to strongly oppose more immigration, not OK to hate immigrants.
Yes, this is what I was trying to say but as usual you are far more articulate than me.
But the question remains, how does a Labour leader deal with that? I can't think our view here is popular with the people Labour needs to win over
I think house prices are too high but never got the argument in places like Cornwall that say incomers are pushing up prices and its not the locals fault - who sold the houses to the incomers in the first place at the highest price they could get? Wasn't complaining about that then were they.
Comments
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/march/evangelical-nones-mainline-us-general-social-survey-gss.html
They also turn out more than non religious voters, in 2016 their share of turnout was 26%, compared to their 22.5% share of the population, those of no religion made up only 15% of the total voter turnout despite 23% of Americans now having no religion
Put an offer down on a flat (to rent) but unfortunately it was rejected, so the search continues.
I've got plans for next weekend.
I genuinely didn't think a head nod implied automatic agreement, you can call me naive, I've been called much worse
https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/1307363856151392257
Keir in the Telegraph again!
Clearly telling people they're racist is the wrong thing to do as not only is it often wrong, it also turns them off.
Personally I think the focus needs to shift away from the culture war - which Blair said don't have, you can't win and he was right - and onto policies.
Get into Government, change lives for the better with progressive policies (as I believe in) and I think in the longterm that will see these attitudes diminish. That's how I think we do it.
Shame about the flat, where is it? I've heard that rents in London are in free fall so hopefully you find somewhere soon. I know a friend of mine just renegotiated her rent in Hackney down by 20% for the period of lockdown where she had been withholding the rent and for the next year. She's absolutely ruthless though and basically said it was this is she was happy to be evicted and he would get nothing until then so he just had to live with it.
I think the longer we wait the better the deal we will get but I would like to get into a new place before the end of the year. But I can cope in my current position for a bit longer.
Without wanting to sound morbid, Breyer is 82, Trump in his two terms may well have appointed 4 members of the court, that's an ideological shift that will last the better part of half a century.
I voted for him knowing full well that he was going to change the party - and I genuinely believe most people in the party felt the same. He had to some party pitching because it's a left wing party and you should know your audience but these people are kidding themselves if they thought we'd just carry on as we were after 2019
Evictions ban ends tomorrow. Too many seem to think rents are a one way bet. And that the "going rate" is what they've got away with in the past.
I do enjoy your posts, a "tear it all down" vibe is what I get from you, I like it
They had the majority to do it in the early 00s, they didn't do it.
But 5 weeks if it isn't.
I said it a month ago, arrogance has seeped in that the virus has gone and we've now given up as a society trying to prevent it. The issue now is that now the attitude has gone, we won't ever get it back. I can only blame Government incompetence for this.
When the lockdown ended it should have been groups of six at most, hands face space from then and an encouragement to continue WFH and avoiding public transport.
I wonder if despite the economic impacts, whether in a few months eat out to help out will be seen as a massive misstep
I know economically we had to get people into the economy again but if the net result is the economy in another hole, then what was the point?
I honestly wonder if people being frightened to go out might not have been a better end result
So even the Government now accepts No Deal is a disaster
That is all.
I recall when Corbyn used to come third in a two course race, set for a landslide defeat many here said
https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1307318366672125953?s=19
Furthermore, it's clear that major European countries such as France and Spain are if anything in an even worse situation, and the images of the crowd at the TDF this week have beggared belief. Macron of course was amongst them. According to an article in the Times this week pretty much every country in Europe has major issues with testing capacity.
Managing Covid is not as easy as some on here seem to suggest.
So its simply a fact that a lot of people up north are biased against people aren't like them and that includes but is not exclusive to foreigners. That race defines the Brirish identity and thus the referendum result doesn't make people who voted to leave because migration automatically open racists. They aren't.
If you can find a skilled operator its easy to twist this underlying tendency for your own ends. The Daily Mail for sales. Leave.EU for a campaign. His Eminence the Mayor of Thornaby for votes. The people in my town aren't prejudiced against incomers and outsiders or the outside world. They work and shop across the river in Stockton. But they're also quite happy to vote for identity politics which says north of the river is screwing you because they don't care about you and we're YORKSHIRE so screw you.
Not racist. Just biased.
It is why I place the Covid deniers in the same category as anti-vaxxers and people who put pineapple on pizza.
Perhaps that is why we've received an offer (at advertised price) on our house just 2 days after putting it on the market. I now need to get on with viewing the place we want and unless some unknown nasty get that on offer as well. When we will actually be able to move, dunno.
Where it is not reasonable, and becomes morally inacceptable, is to hate the individual incomers, who are no doubt perfectly nice people, and aren't trying to do any harm. So: OK to hate the fact of the incoming, not the incoming people. OK to strongly oppose more immigration, not OK to hate immigrants.
He'll look good in a Tom Ford suit though. According to my Mrs.
This is why I bang on about Sweden. Their policy is designed to be manageable for a long period. Instead we will be in and out of local, regional, national lockdowns of a varying and increasingly incomprehensible nature until whenever a working and safe vaccine appears.
It is a total mess imho. Rule of six lasted, what, all of five days?
Was it part of some form of elaborate money laundering operation?
High temperature and a persistent cough for many shortly...
But the question remains, how does a Labour leader deal with that? I can't think our view here is popular with the people Labour needs to win over
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-3299_article
Reflects importance of pre-boarding screening - self declaration not adequate.