Had there not been an Election in 2017, and the result in 2019 been the same, I wonder how Corbyn would have been viewed? Small improvement on 2010 and 2015
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Had there not been an Election in 2017, and the result in 2019 been the same, I wonder how Corbyn would have been viewed? Small improvement on 2010 and 2015
Interesting also to note the Conservative and Labour vote trajectory in 1945 - I had never seen that before and assumed Churchill had kind of thrown it away, but the trend was already there
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Where does @kinabalu's favourite public schoolboy Bazza stand?
It'll be interesting to see how The Crown portrays the relationship between her Majesty and her Maggie. Although there have always been rumours of tensions it should be remembered that the Monarch has only attended one Prime ministerial funeral since Churchill and that was for her most controversial and divisive one. A surprising move given her love of Scotland and the Union.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
Reminder: Starmer is a QC.
I find the man ineffably boring, as a speaker, and largely uninteresting, as a thinker, but I do not doubt his intelligence, especially his lawyerly intelligence. You don’t get to take silk by making crass mistakes
Equally, what works on a High Court judge doesn't necessarily work on joe public. I'd be interested to know what proportion of his advocacy was jury vs judge alone.
He’s doing very well right now, in all the public polling of leaders. What other evidence is available?
At some point a Labour leader, serious about gaining power, had to confront these extremist nutters, and, ideally, expel them. The EHRC report has given Starmer the perfect opportunity. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
He looks decisive yet sensible. Centrist but firm. Highly electable. I can easily see him beating an exhausted, idea-less Tory party in 2024.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
But do you think the woman at Cambridge is a twat?
Sky News analysis comparing Sir Keir's expulsion of Corbyn to Neil Kinnock's purge of Militant Tendency in the 1980's. That, of course, paved the way for Tony Blair's crushing 1997 victory.
Which also tells you that it could be a long time coming for Labour. And that Sir Keir might not be the one to walk into No. 10.
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Interestingly there is a poll of American Jews which goes 75-22 for Biden. One of findings is that they're less impressed by Trumps moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and being the 'most pro Israeli President in US history' than they are by his support for white supremicists at home. This is something little understood by the many Faragist/Johnsonites shouting anti-semite at Corbyn who post here.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
But do you think the woman at Cambridge is a twat?
I cannot emphasise enough in the absence of a big 3rd party challenge how difficult it will be for Trump to win if he is nationally polling under 45%. Yes the electoral college adds its quirks but the fall of the votes would have to be very fortunate indeed. Biden's percentages would have to be notably down on anything we have seen
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Amazingly, ‘satisfying Kinabalu on PB’ does not appear in the first thousand items on my To Do list
Of course. Understood. But there's no rush - and I am interested. I think the answer will have general utility.
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
Plus those avid and longtime supporters of him, MPs now retired, who give off an air of absolute reasonable on the one handness and like now to opine on political matters on internet chat rooms.
Not sure how one gets rid of such vile people, that said, as the electorate already did the job but still.
Rasmussen nudges the needle to Biden +1 .... Titter ....
Did you ever work out how your FOP prediction went awry last time?
Indeed so. The internal gubbins of my ARSE were a sight to behold. I ascertained there was a 5% blockage in the working (class) of the (far) right buttock. The purgative administered by Dr Hugh Janus restored the balance very well ....
Talking of Blimey, has the Citizen Data poll for TX been discussed yet? As posted on 538, 1000LV, Biden +10. Does not pass the smell test, but their other State polls look within the bounds of possible (PA, GA, FL Biden+5, NC +7, MI +8, OH Trump +1 which all might be in the 1-2% Dem bias range).
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
SKS should sack himself?
Hence the wink.
Being serious getting rid of Corbyn is a good start but Starmer should be reflecting upon how he stood by in the Shadow Cabinet while all this was going on.
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
SKS should sack himself?
Hence the wink.
Being serious getting rid of Corbyn is a good start but Starmer should be reflecting upon how he stood by in the Shadow Cabinet while all this was going on.
We are all on the same roller coaster, just at different points...
Swedish colleagues reporting Stockholm, Gothenburg and other areas recommending the following voluntary actions: - Avoid public indoors locations such as shops, shopping malls, museums, libraries, bath houses and gyms. Visit grocery stores and pharmacies only as necessary. - Avoid public gatherings such as meetings, concerts, shows and sports events. This does not apply to children born 2005 or later. - Avoid physical contact with people outside your household if possible. Avoid participating in parties and other social events.
This morning I had never been more ashamed to be a Labour party member. This afternoon, I feel proud that we have a leadership prepared to make politically difficult, but morally unavoidable, decisions. There will now be open warfare. Some unions may walk, some MPs too, many members will. Good. This is a conflict that Starmer, Evans and co must win. If they do, Labour will become a fully electable alternative party of government once more. If not, the party is over, done and finished. No pressure, then, Sir Keir.
We are all on the same roller coaster, just at different points...
Swedish colleagues reporting Stockholm, Gothenburg and other areas recommending the following voluntary actions: - Avoid public indoors locations such as shops, shopping malls, museums, libraries, bath houses and gyms. Visit grocery stores and pharmacies only as necessary. - Avoid public gatherings such as meetings, concerts, shows and sports events. This does not apply to children born 2005 or later. - Avoid physical contact with people outside your household if possible. Avoid participating in parties and other social events.
I very much like the "recommend" bit.
Rather than allow police to enter your premises on suspicion of you holding a birthday party for your granny.
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Amazingly, ‘satisfying Kinabalu on PB’ does not appear in the first thousand items on my To Do list
Of course. Understood. But there's no rush - and I am interested. I think the answer will have general utility.
Cool. I’ll get back to you in the mid 2030s. When we are all living in plastic cave cocoons. In the 4th iteration of the planetoid simulation-loop 4eG “earthworld 9: when LadyG can be arsed”
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
Plus those avid and longtime supporters of him, MPs now retired, who give off an air of absolute reasonable on the one handness and like now to opine on political matters on internet chat rooms.
Not sure how one gets rid of such vile people, that said, as the electorate already did the job but still.
Improvement in the Test and Trace tracking this week.
The virus does seem to be turning a corner in this country.
Someone, I do know who but won't embarrass them, said on here two weeks ago that it was all levelling off. That was when cases were around 10k a day and deaths below 100.
Every time anyone claims lordship over this virus they get bitten in the ass.
1) Hope he’s exonerated, and crawl back on Starmer’s terms.
2) Sit as an independent or resign his seat and take his humongous pension
3) Join another party that matches his views more closely.
It’s a no-brainer. He should do what he’s clearly always secretly wanted to do. Join a party that promotes high welfare dependency, nationalising rail, and is run by thick white posh boys like him who keep saying horrendous things they don’t realise are racist...
Time for him to fuck off and join the Tories.
(No, this is not meant entirely seriously.)
The Tories would probably take him as it bumps their notional majority to 82.
Why not? He voted with them on enough occassions over the last twenty three years.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You have zero understanding of the meaning of "black lives matter" do you?
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
Half agree. I think this IS big and decisive from Starmer but, like you, I would have thought that the sacking offence, if you are going to do it, is presiding over what the Report describes, not his totally predictable response to the Report. Corbyn believes (sincerely) that he did his best with the issue and that the extent of it WAS exaggerated by his political opponents. So why would he say any different now on those points? If he did he would be lying and would be obvious to everybody that he was.
I cannot emphasise enough in the absence of a big 3rd party challenge how difficult it will be for Trump to win if he is nationally polling under 45%. Yes the electoral college adds its quirks but the fall of the votes would have to be very fortunate indeed. Biden's percentages would have to be notably down on anything we have seen
This is true but the thinking of those who believe Trump has a realistic chance is that IF he can get the 46% he got last time and perhaps a tiny bit more and IF the votes land perfectly in the right states (as they did largely last time) even losing the national vote by 4/5 even 6% as opposed to 2 last time, he can fall over the line. Its a much bigger ask IMO than 4 years ago partly for the reason you give but after 2016 the fact him winning even with those odds is still possible is enough to make many people think he just might.
This morning I had never been more ashamed to be a Labour party member. This afternoon, I feel proud that we have a leadership prepared to make politically difficult, but morally unavoidable, decisions. There will now be open warfare. Some unions may walk, some MPs too, many members will. Good. This is a conflict that Starmer, Evans and co must win. If they do, Labour will become a fully electable alternative party of government once more. If not, the party is over, done and finished. No pressure, then, Sir Keir.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
It`s all a bit tedious isn`t it. We could say "all lives matter" if you get a kick out of stating the bleeding obvious.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
SKS should sack himself?
Hence the wink.
Being serious getting rid of Corbyn is a good start but Starmer should be reflecting upon how he stood by in the Shadow Cabinet while all this was going on.
He must have known what was happening
Starmer’s argument must be that of Claudius in ‘I, Claudius’
While Tiberius and Caligula were murdering everyone and having horses made senators and employing boys to nibble their testicles underwater (yes, we’re looking at you Barry Gardiner) someone rational had to remain in the Imperial Court, keep their head down, then take over and be a new, sane emperor when the right time came.
That’s what Starmer has done. Being an impotent Yvette Cooper on the backbenches was pointless. He had to stay close to power, tell a few fibs, so he could seize the nearby reins when the opportunity arose.
Good luck to him. This country desperately needs a clever, sensible Opposition. The Tories are flailing. This is a painful but necessary day for Labour. And ultimately a good day for Britain.
Quite impressed with how Raynor dealt with a tricky interview on R4. (I'd previously thought she was hopeless)
I'm amused at this news - Corbyn and the far left can go jump off things so far as I'm concerned. I'd not been aware of the McClusky comments on Mandelson - I think he needs to stand down.
The Machiavellian goings on of Labour are quite amazing. Starmer keeping his powder dry for so long. In this respect the Tories can't match them.
So, to present a view to the contrary, Corbyn always struck me as a very decent guy (though thoroughly ideologically deluded IMO). He despises wealth but is not racist. Starmer has not gone up in my estimation, he`s succumbed to the tyranny of the prevailing opinion.
He can row back as much as he likes, he's still going to sink. No way Starmer will let him back now he's gone this far, he would have zero credibility, even less than if he hadn't suspended him in the first place,
Plus those avid and longtime supporters of him, MPs now retired, who give off an air of absolute reasonable on the one handness and like now to opine on political matters on internet chat rooms.
Not sure how one gets rid of such vile people, that said, as the electorate already did the job but still.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
You are comparing black people to cripples?
What? No I am pointing out how ridiculous your post is with an analogy.
You don't need to campaign for those with power. You campaign for those that are discriminated against unjustly.
White lives do matter, but there is no need whatsoever to say so. If one does say so it says a great deal about the person who says it.
Diane Abbott Tahir Ali Mike Amesbury Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Barry Gardiner Kate Hollern Afzal Khan Rebecca Lon Bailey Angel Rayner Steve Reed Lloyd Russell-Moyle Barry Sheerman Zarah Sultana
Ooh - please suspend Angela Rayner
Those 15 are a start. Who else needs to be on Starmer's List? Ian Lavery. Claudia Webbe. John McDonnell. Sam Tarry.
Who else...?
Anyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was complicit in this, get rid of them all. 😉
Plus those avid and longtime supporters of him, MPs now retired, who give off an air of absolute reasonable on the one handness and like now to opine on political matters on internet chat rooms.
Not sure how one gets rid of such vile people, that said, as the electorate already did the job but still.
Webbe is not currently a Labour MP - whip suspended over allegations of harrassment.
I gather from the implicit logic of several PB Tories that if Corbo had made antisemitic remarks at home, perhaps at one of those Covid busting dinner parties, that would have been ok. Have I got this right?
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
Yeah, I'm with you on this, there's nothing wrong with flying a "white lives matter" banner per se, e.g. if the intention was to highlight particular problems in a predominantly white area, say knife crime. That the original slogan is relating to police killing of black people doesn't mean it can't be used for other purposes (BLM itself has also expanded beyond that main issue).
That said, my recollection aligns with that of @TSE that the guy who flew the banner, in contrast to some of the media reports, was actually sacked for other things which were good reasons for sacking.
Quite impressed with how Raynor dealt with a tricky interview on R4. (I'd previously thought she was hopeless)
I'm amused at this news - Corbyn and the far left can go jump off things so far as I'm concerned. I'd not been aware of the McClusky comments on Mandelson - I think he needs to stand down.
The Machiavellian goings on of Labour are quite amazing. Starmer keeping his powder dry for so long. In this respect the Tories can't match them.
Starmer seems good at the 'give them enough rope' strategy.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
Yeah, I'm with you on this, there's nothing wrong with flying a "white lives matter" banner per se, e.g. if the intention was to highlight particular problems in a predominantly white area, say knife crime. That the original slogan is relating to police killing of black people doesn't mean it can't be used for other purposes (BLM itself has also expanded beyond that main issue).
That said, my recollection aligns with that of @TSE that the guy who flew the banner, in contrast to some of the media reports, was actually sacked for other things which were good reasons for sacking.
Yeah, there was a load of stuff on Facebook, I think. If they'd really wanted to cause trouble, they should have written "Asian lives matter"
BLIMEY, I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS I thought this was going to be about the Biden + 9 Texas poll.
Need to find out more about the pollster
What made me wonder about the Democrats taking Texas is the 20-30% of registered voters in the two largest Republican voting counties (Collin and Denton) being new since 2016. They moved from voting about +20% for Trump in 2016, to + single figures for Cruz two years ago. If that move has continued - and it's quite a big if - then I think it's seriously on.
Texas just flips but Florida just doesn't is a scenario I keep coming back to. And I'd take that obviously.
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
You are comparing black people to cripples?
What? No I am pointing out how ridiculous your post is with an analogy.
You don't need to campaign for those with power. You campaign for those that are discriminated against unjustly.
White lives do matter, but there is no need whatsoever to say so. If one does say so it says a great deal about the person who says it.
What are you wibbling on about?
Studies have shown that white working class boys are the worst performing group of all.
This morning I had never been more ashamed to be a Labour party member. This afternoon, I feel proud that we have a leadership prepared to make politically difficult, but morally unavoidable, decisions. There will now be open warfare. Some unions may walk, some MPs too, many members will. Good. This is a conflict that Starmer, Evans and co must win. If they do, Labour will become a fully electable alternative party of government once more. If not, the party is over, done and finished. No pressure, then, Sir Keir.
We have the most right wing Government the UK has seen. It's morality has been questioned from allowing Richard Desmond to be saved from a forty five million pound tax bill. Robert Jenrick is funnelling funds to his own constituency and last week the Conservative Party voted to withhold free school meals to the poorest of children.
Jeremy Corbyn and his chums would prefer to start an internecine war which could tear the Labour Party assunder and hand Boris Johnson another four years. Sod malnourished children!
Improvement in the Test and Trace tracking this week.
The virus does seem to be turning a corner in this country.
Someone, I do know who but won't embarrass them, said on here two weeks ago that it was all levelling off. That was when cases were around 10k a day and deaths below 100.
Every time anyone claims lordship over this virus they get bitten in the ass.
I suspect we're in for a rough winter.
It does seem to be levelling off, the increase in rate of cases seems to be slowing down each week for the past fortnight.
But of course deaths are a lagging indicator. Deaths yesterday are for infections 2-3 weeks ago. Deaths 2 weeks ago were for infections more than a month ago. Even if we had hit the peak today in infections we would still see cases rise (as we get better at tracking them) and deaths rise (due to lag).
France paying the price for sticking up for Western values.
Meanwhile in Scotland we have new hate laws that would make criticising the ideology that carried out this attack in their own homes illegal.
According to my reading of the proposal, showing a copy of the Charlie H at a hypothetical dinner party would be prosecutable.
Apparently it introduces "an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics", so it's not even a bill that will help protect everyone, just the chosen few.
Essentially an Islamic blasphemy law, one of the key parts of Sharia law being implemented by one of the few Muslims in power in Scotland.
Get a grip.
"Protected characteristics These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."
I don't know what you've been reading, but everyone has protected characteristics. You can't stir up hatred against the majority/less commonly persecuted in any of those groups either. So it's not ok to stir up hatred against men, against heterosexual people, against non-disabled people, against non-pregnant people, against atheists (or Christians) etc etc. The point about equality legislation is that it does protect everyone, not just those traditionally persecuted. There's a clue in the name.
(I haven't looked in to the proposed Scottish law to see whether it makes sense, so won't comment on that, just on the random raging against equality/anti-hate law)
Separately, @Malmesbury (genuinely interested) why would showing a copy of Charlie H stir up hatred? It's offensive to Muslims, sure, but does it stir up hatred? May be I've missed something either in Charlie H (I've only briefly read reports of what's in it) or the law, but I can't see it myself.
If the law was applied equally to all groups then yes you'd have a point, but it is quite clear that they aren't.
For example the professor at Cambridge that tweeted that "white lives don't matter" and "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men" had no action taken against her.
If the target of the tweets had been a protected minority then she would have been investigated by the police, no doubt about it.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it's clear they've "stirred up hatred" since a result of them getting published they got machine gunned to death and now people are getting beheaded in France left, right and centre over them.
Thank you for the measured reply, particularly as I was a bit rude to you (sorry for that).
I agree the law should be applied to all and it is important that it is. I'm not aware of those tweets, but I don't think tweeting "white lives don't matter" is stirring up hatred. It's stupid and crass, yes, but I don't think it is/should be illegal. The same applies to tweeting "black lives don't matter". For the second, "every day I resist the urge to kneecap white men", I'd probably need a bit more context to judge whether it's actually stirring up hatred or stupid hyperbole such as "X person should be shot", but would have thought that might interest the police to have a word at least (same if it was "every day I resist the urge to kneecap black men"). I wouldn't employ that person.
No problem, it wasn't so rude.
To be honest it's not just the law itself that is not applied equality, but institutions as well.
She got a promotion from Cambridge a few days after those tweets, if it had been a white professor saying the same things about black people then I think we all know they would have been fired immediately.
In contrast the guy who flew the "white lives matter" banner in Burnley lost his job as an engineer, as did his girlfriend. His mother was threatened with the sack as well, she only managed to keep her job after disowning him in public.
I'm afraid I have no confidence whatsoever that these hate laws will be applied equally. Even if they were, criminalising people for saying stupid stuff privately in their own house is completely crazy.
Anyone who decides to fly a "white lives matter" banner is a tw*t. I have no sympathy.
"white lives matter" = horrible twat and deserves everything he gets "black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
You are comparing black people to cripples?
What? No I am pointing out how ridiculous your post is with an analogy.
You don't need to campaign for those with power. You campaign for those that are discriminated against unjustly.
White lives do matter, but there is no need whatsoever to say so. If one does say so it says a great deal about the person who says it.
What are you wibbling on about?
Studies have shown that white working class boys are the worst performing group of all. Maybe it is time you educated yourself.
Yeah just ignore the point and go off on a tangent. Yes white working class boys struggle in education and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point you raised
Any idiot flying a white lives matter banner is doing it in response to the black lives matter banners who are campaigning for fair treatment and anti discrimination of black people.
I just wonder what the views are on race of anyone holding a white lives matter banner. I sort I think I can guess.
I gather from the implicit logic of several PB Tories that if Corbo had made antisemitic remarks at home, perhaps at one of those Covid busting dinner parties, that would have been ok. Have I got this right?
The investigation itself isn't about "people saying racist things," it's about how complaints about those things were dealt with internally. They were dealt with very badly - one of the things investigated was the way Corbyn's top team were re-editing complaints to be submitted for internal investigation. Whether they're racist or not, it is abominably stupid. Corbyn takes that stupidity to an all-new level.
Why do marxists have blind spots on the way they wield their own power? The entire theory is about power structures.
All too dithery and picky by half. If you had balls and principles you'd suspend Corbyn over the report, not as a reaction to his reaction to it. Blinder, schminder; this is going to unravel faster than a George Osborne budget.
I did think that. He must have known JC was going to refute it's findings, so why wait ?
The "why wait?" is fairly obvious.
If you do it the moment the report is published, you leave yourself open to "he was just waiting for any excuse" line. As it is, you can say "this is the LAST thing I wanted, but sadly Jeremy's reaction left me with no choice".
He did the same over RLB - gave her one chance to delete and apologise for the Maxine Peake retweet; she didn't; she was sacked.
I gather from the implicit logic of several PB Tories that if Corbo had made antisemitic remarks at home, perhaps at one of those Covid busting dinner parties, that would have been ok. Have I got this right?
Yes absolutely it shouldn't be a matter for the Police - 100% agree with that.
Indeed making the antisemitic remarks in public shouldn't be a matter for the Police either.
They should be a matter for politics.
People should have the right to say vile things and the rest of the country should have the right to tackle them on air for doing so and disassociate themselves for doing so. But the Police shouldn't be the ones getting involved for wrongthink.
This morning I had never been more ashamed to be a Labour party member. This afternoon, I feel proud that we have a leadership prepared to make politically difficult, but morally unavoidable, decisions. There will now be open warfare. Some unions may walk, some MPs too, many members will. Good. This is a conflict that Starmer, Evans and co must win. If they do, Labour will become a fully electable alternative party of government once more. If not, the party is over, done and finished. No pressure, then, Sir Keir.
Clause 4 moment?
Much, much bigger. That was largely symbolic. This is much closer to Kinnock's conference speech in 1985, I'd say. We all know how long it took for Labour to get back from there!
I gather from the implicit logic of several PB Tories that if Corbo had made antisemitic remarks at home, perhaps at one of those Covid busting dinner parties, that would have been ok. Have I got this right?
To me the location is not so important as the expectation of privacy. If Corbyn made anti-semitic remarks to his close family around the regular dinner table, I'd think him despicable, but not a criminal. If around the same table but with his kitchen cabinet joining him for dinner to discuss Her Majesty's Opposition business he made the same remarks, that would be a different matter.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with all infringements of speech and, while recognizing that there must be some limits, think we have to be careful not to let the exception for incitement to violence creep into too much censorship. Or soon enough we'll have the thought police.
Sky News analysis comparing Sir Keir's expulsion of Corbyn to Neil Kinnock's purge of Militant Tendency in the 1980's. That, of course, paved the way for Tony Blair's crushing 1997 victory.
Which also tells you that it could be a long time coming for Labour. And that Sir Keir might not be the one to walk into No. 10.
People underestimate the electoral mountain Labour are facing. Sure they are likely to get ahead in the opinion polls sooner or later but that is very different to the task of overturning a Tory landslide when Labour are not even competitive in Scotland. SKS's job was simply to make Labour electable and worthy of consideration by 2024 - he cant win that election on his own, he can only do that if the Tories mess up bigly (which events so far suggest is happening).
The best thing the tories could do at the moment is to STFU about this, and let it play out.
Reminding the country that Starmer has kicked out Corbyn will play well with voters who like Starmer but were put off by Corbyn's Labour.
Put off to the extent that his best vote share at GE's was only bettered by Blair in recent times, and his worst was better than Brown's and Miliband's?
How can people ignore those facts? I find it incredible from anyone interested in serious analysis
Improvement in the Test and Trace tracking this week.
The virus does seem to be turning a corner in this country.
Someone, I do know who but won't embarrass them, said on here two weeks ago that it was all levelling off. That was when cases were around 10k a day and deaths below 100.
Every time anyone claims lordship over this virus they get bitten in the ass.
I suspect we're in for a rough winter.
It does seem to be levelling off, the increase in rate of cases seems to be slowing down each week for the past fortnight.
But of course deaths are a lagging indicator. Deaths yesterday are for infections 2-3 weeks ago. Deaths 2 weeks ago were for infections more than a month ago. Even if we had hit the peak today in infections we would still see cases rise (as we get better at tracking them) and deaths rise (due to lag).
More correctly, the exponential increase appeared to shift to a slower, more linear increase.
We are all on the same roller coaster, just at different points...
Except they kept their schools open all the way through. So their rollercoaster has been a lot smoother
So, the latest IMF forecasts suggests the UK economy will shrink by 10.4% this year and recover 5.7% in 2021.
Data today showed the US economy is now 3.5% smaller than before COVID after a greater than expected 33.1% rebound in the last quarter.
4Q growth is probably slowing, but its not beyond the bounds of possibility the US could end 2020 GBP flat or positive.
Europe? More stimulus ahead as lockdown threatens double dip recession
4Q growth in the US will be negative (as it will in Europe).
Also, it' not 3.5% smaller than before Covid because you can't "add" percentage changes. If your economy contracts 50% and then grows 50% it will be 25% smaller than at the start.
In this case (and this is slightly simplifying) but if you start at 100 at the end of December * 0.95 for Q1, then 0.69 for Q2 and then 1.33 then you get to - not 95 - but to 87. (The numbers are not exactly this because the US reports annualised growth rather than actual quarterly changes, and I can't be arsed to work it out, but the point is the same.)
I gather from the implicit logic of several PB Tories that if Corbo had made antisemitic remarks at home, perhaps at one of those Covid busting dinner parties, that would have been ok. Have I got this right?
Yes absolutely it shouldn't be a matter for the Police - 100% agree with that.
Indeed making the antisemitic remarks in public shouldn't be a matter for the Police either.
They should be a matter for politics.
People should have the right to say vile things and the rest of the country should have the right to tackle them on air for doing so and disassociate themselves for doing so. But the Police shouldn't be the ones getting involved for wrongthink.
Re Orwellian allusions.
Titania McGrath: "I’m so BORED of the word “Orwellian” being used against those of us who care about social justice. It’s SO unoriginal.
Besides, there is nothing remotely “Orwellian” about empowering the state to reinforce the parameters of acceptable thought and speech."
So in summary it looks like women and young people are turning out heavily (good for Biden) but African Americans are turning out at a lower rate than they did for Clinton (very bad for Biden).
This would explain the pivot in a lot of Biden's output over the last 48 hours to civil rights and related issues.
Question is, does it harm him with wavering white voters? I'm convinced Clinton's high profile appearance with the mothers of black men killed by police harmed her significantly due to the failure to weed out those who the average voter would regard as a violent criminal who got what was coming to them and appear only with those where there is an open and shut case that they were killed by racism.
So far I think Biden is threading the needle better, but I'm not an undecided white American.
The best thing the tories could do at the moment is to STFU about this, and let it play out.
Reminding the country that Starmer has kicked out Corbyn will play well with voters who like Starmer but were put off by Corbyn's Labour.
Put off to the extent that his best vote share at GE's was only bettered by Blair in recent times, and his worst was better than Brown's and Miliband's?
How can people ignore those facts? I find it incredible from anyone interested in serious analysis
The fact that it was a strong vote share shows how impossible nevertheless it was for him to win. Because no matter how high it was, there were always more people motivated to vote against him.
A N Other Tory vs SKS, by contrast might have a lot of meh about it and hence SKS could win with fewer votes.
Bullshit, antisemitism is on the extremes of the left and right.
Or did you miss Trump's supporters chanting 'Jews will not replace us' or the background of alleged perpetrator of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting?
The best thing the tories could do at the moment is to STFU about this, and let it play out.
Reminding the country that Starmer has kicked out Corbyn will play well with voters who like Starmer but were put off by Corbyn's Labour.
Put off to the extent that his best vote share at GE's was only bettered by Blair in recent times, and his worst was better than Brown and Miliband's?
How can people ignore those facts? I find it incredible from anyone interested in serious analysis
Fans of single data points might like that type of analysis, but I'm looking at
1) The relative Tory lead in 2019 (from which the next election flows) which is nearly double what happened in 2010 and 2015.
2) Again look at the seat numbers, his very worst was one of Labour's very worst.
Ooooh you are so clever, I forgot haha!!
He attracted more supporters than people who dislike his politics are prepared to give him credit for, and they assume that those supporters will just turn up and vote for the people who kicked him out. I'd say they are more likely to make him a martyr
We are all on the same roller coaster, just at different points...
Swedish colleagues reporting Stockholm, Gothenburg and other areas recommending the following voluntary actions: - Avoid public indoors locations such as shops, shopping malls, museums, libraries, bath houses and gyms. Visit grocery stores and pharmacies only as necessary. - Avoid public gatherings such as meetings, concerts, shows and sports events. This does not apply to children born 2005 or later. - Avoid physical contact with people outside your household if possible. Avoid participating in parties and other social events.
I very much like the "recommend" bit.
Rather than allow police to enter your premises on suspicion of you holding a birthday party for your granny.
Polisen don't need to enforce it though, the vast majority of Swedes will comply.
This surprises me, I must admit. There is the benefit of showing that "Under New Leadership" is no empty slogan. Against this is the risk of internal warfare in the party. I would have said the potential damage is greater than the benefit but it looks like Starmer disagrees. Let's see how the Left react.
He’s a f*cking anti-Semite and you would have ZERO tolerance for a clear and obvious racist in the Tory party. Your true colours are showing.
My "true colours". Oh dear. C'mon.
Despite writing countless posts on here that are not - cough - completely free of racist sentiment I have noticed that you tend to become apoplectic about antisemitism on the Left and in the Labour Party.
Why is this? I bet you can't explain it to my satisfaction.
Interestingly there is a poll of American Jews which goes 75-22 for Biden. One of findings is that they're less impressed by Trumps moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and being the 'most pro Israeli President in US history' than they are by his support for white supremicists at home. This is something little understood by the many Faragist/Johnsonites shouting anti-semite at Corbyn who post here.
Sky News analysis comparing Sir Keir's expulsion of Corbyn to Neil Kinnock's purge of Militant Tendency in the 1980's. That, of course, paved the way for Tony Blair's crushing 1997 victory.
Which also tells you that it could be a long time coming for Labour. And that Sir Keir might not be the one to walk into No. 10.
People underestimate the electoral mountain Labour are facing. Sure they are likely to get ahead in the opinion polls sooner or later but that is very different to the task of overturning a Tory landslide when Labour are not even competitive in Scotland. SKS's job was simply to make Labour electable and worthy of consideration by 2024 - he cant win that election on his own, he can only do that if the Tories mess up bigly (which events so far suggest is happening).
With the Sturgeon-Salmond psychodrama still unfolding, it’s not impossible the SNP will tumble (everyone does, eventually). And the SNP are so oddly dominant due to FPTP it only takes a modest fall in Nat support to open up a load of Scottish seats.
Once Starmer has dealt with the vile Corbyn, he should turn his attention to Scotland. Make Scottish Labour credible again. Perhaps support devomax in a new three way referendum? He should develop new ideas, anyway. If he unlocks just a few Scottish seats the route to power is much clearer.
Comments
Who else...?
The surge in mail-in ballots could cause a big “blue shift.”"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-count-could-change-after-election-night/
At some point a Labour leader, serious about gaining power, had to confront these extremist nutters, and, ideally, expel them. The EHRC report has given Starmer the perfect opportunity. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
He looks decisive yet sensible. Centrist but firm. Highly electable. I can easily see him beating an exhausted, idea-less Tory party in 2024.
"On a previous visit to Haileybury 10 years ago, he said he expected the Tories to be a major force again within 10 years, "when Labour gets complacent"."
The virus does seem to be turning a corner in this country.
Which also tells you that it could be a long time coming for Labour. And that Sir Keir might not be the one to walk into No. 10.
https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmers-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn-echoes-kinnocks-purge-of-militant-tendency-12117885
https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2020/10/21/poll-biden-has-massive-lead-over-trump-among-jewish-voters-florida/3716023001/
Not sure how one gets rid of such vile people, that said, as the electorate already did the job but still.
Being serious getting rid of Corbyn is a good start but Starmer should be reflecting upon how he stood by in the Shadow Cabinet while all this was going on.
Multiply by 7 for pro rata with UK.
We are all on the same roller coaster, just at different points...
- Avoid public indoors locations such as shops, shopping malls, museums, libraries, bath houses and gyms. Visit grocery stores and pharmacies only as necessary.
- Avoid public gatherings such as meetings, concerts, shows and sports events. This does not apply to children born 2005 or later.
- Avoid physical contact with people outside your household if possible. Avoid participating in parties and other social events.
Rather than allow police to enter your premises on suspicion of you holding a birthday party for your granny.
"black lives matter" = good and noble cause
But at the same time the hate laws will totally be applied equally.
Every time anyone claims lordship over this virus they get bitten in the ass.
I suspect we're in for a rough winter.
Educate yourself for god sake.
You make a very good point. Maybe we should start a campaign for able bodied people as well because of the advantages cripples have over us like wheel chair ramps etc, etc.
Now if 20 hard left MP’s want to excommunicate themselves I’d imagine Starmer will be opening the bubbly early, and he’d be right to.
Its a much bigger ask IMO than 4 years ago partly for the reason you give but after 2016 the fact him winning even with those odds is still possible is enough to make many people think he just might.
While Tiberius and Caligula were murdering everyone and having horses made senators and employing boys to nibble their testicles underwater (yes, we’re looking at you Barry Gardiner) someone rational had to remain in the Imperial Court, keep their head down, then take over and be a new, sane emperor when the right time came.
That’s what Starmer has done. Being an impotent Yvette Cooper on the backbenches was pointless. He had to stay close to power, tell a few fibs, so he could seize the nearby reins when the opportunity arose.
Good luck to him. This country desperately needs a clever, sensible Opposition. The Tories are flailing. This is a painful but necessary day for Labour. And ultimately a good day for Britain.
I'm amused at this news - Corbyn and the far left can go jump off things so far as I'm concerned. I'd not been aware of the McClusky comments on Mandelson - I think he needs to stand down.
The Machiavellian goings on of Labour are quite amazing. Starmer keeping his powder dry for so long. In this respect the Tories can't match them.
You don't need to campaign for those with power. You campaign for those that are discriminated against unjustly.
White lives do matter, but there is no need whatsoever to say so. If one does say so it says a great deal about the person who says it.
Data today showed the US economy is now 3.5% smaller than before COVID after a greater than expected 33.1% rebound in the last quarter.
4Q growth is probably slowing, but its not beyond the bounds of possibility the US could end 2020 GBP flat or positive.
Europe? More stimulus ahead as lockdown threatens double dip recession
That said, my recollection aligns with that of @TSE that the guy who flew the banner, in contrast to some of the media reports, was actually sacked for other things which were good reasons for sacking.
Studies have shown that white working class boys are the worst performing group of all.
Maybe it is time you educated yourself.
“I have not read the report, neither do I intend to. But...”
https://twitter.com/rachbradleyitv/status/1321778358942838786?s=21
Jeremy Corbyn and his chums would prefer to start an internecine war which could tear the Labour Party assunder and hand Boris Johnson another four years. Sod malnourished children!
But of course deaths are a lagging indicator. Deaths yesterday are for infections 2-3 weeks ago. Deaths 2 weeks ago were for infections more than a month ago. Even if we had hit the peak today in infections we would still see cases rise (as we get better at tracking them) and deaths rise (due to lag).
Any idiot flying a white lives matter banner is doing it in response to the black lives matter banners who are campaigning for fair treatment and anti discrimination of black people.
I just wonder what the views are on race of anyone holding a white lives matter banner. I sort I think I can guess.
Why do marxists have blind spots on the way they wield their own power? The entire theory is about power structures.
Indeed making the antisemitic remarks in public shouldn't be a matter for the Police either.
They should be a matter for politics.
People should have the right to say vile things and the rest of the country should have the right to tackle them on air for doing so and disassociate themselves for doing so. But the Police shouldn't be the ones getting involved for wrongthink.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with all infringements of speech and, while recognizing that there must be some limits, think we have to be careful not to let the exception for incitement to violence creep into too much censorship. Or soon enough we'll have the thought police.
Which might be more likely to help him in his quest to be PM.
How can people ignore those facts? I find it incredible from anyone interested in serious analysis
Also, it' not 3.5% smaller than before Covid because you can't "add" percentage changes. If your economy contracts 50% and then grows 50% it will be 25% smaller than at the start.
In this case (and this is slightly simplifying) but if you start at 100 at the end of December * 0.95 for Q1, then 0.69 for Q2 and then 1.33 then you get to - not 95 - but to 87. (The numbers are not exactly this because the US reports annualised growth rather than actual quarterly changes, and I can't be arsed to work it out, but the point is the same.)
Re Orwellian allusions.
Titania McGrath: "I’m so BORED of the word “Orwellian” being used against those of us who care about social justice. It’s SO unoriginal.
Besides, there is nothing remotely “Orwellian” about empowering the state to reinforce the parameters of acceptable thought and speech."
This would explain the pivot in a lot of Biden's output over the last 48 hours to civil rights and related issues.
Question is, does it harm him with wavering white voters? I'm convinced Clinton's high profile appearance with the mothers of black men killed by police harmed her significantly due to the failure to weed out those who the average voter would regard as a violent criminal who got what was coming to them and appear only with those where there is an open and shut case that they were killed by racism.
So far I think Biden is threading the needle better, but I'm not an undecided white American.
All power to Starmer if he can purge it in Britain
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1321397398002786304?s=21
1) The relative Tory lead in 2019 (from which the next election flows) which is nearly double what happened in 2010 and 2015.
2) Again look at the seat numbers, his very worst was one of Labour's very worst.
Which would be the second Jurussic MP in a row for the seat in fairness.
Which would be the second Jurussic MP in a row for the seat in fairness.
A N Other Tory vs SKS, by contrast might have a lot of meh about it and hence SKS could win with fewer votes.
Or did you miss Trump's supporters chanting 'Jews will not replace us' or the background of alleged perpetrator of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting?
Ooooh you are so clever, I forgot haha!!
He attracted more supporters than people who dislike his politics are prepared to give him credit for, and they assume that those supporters will just turn up and vote for the people who kicked him out. I'd say they are more likely to make him a martyr
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1321838478284509185
Once Starmer has dealt with the vile Corbyn, he should turn his attention to Scotland. Make Scottish Labour credible again. Perhaps support devomax in a new three way referendum? He should develop new ideas, anyway. If he unlocks just a few Scottish seats the route to power is much clearer.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1321839699175055361